CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 13-01332.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 13-01332.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 13-01332.a1

Aug 8, 2014· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing themselves, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved debts totaling $12,000. The denial was based on ten unresolved collection or charge-off accounts.

The applicant did not provide any documentation of payments made toward these debts. The judge determined that the evidence presented was insufficient to mitigate the government's security concerns, specifically citing Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19.

Ultimately, the judge emphasized the paramount importance of national security in clearance decisions, leading to the denial of the applicant's security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 6, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 13, 2014
Decision dateAug 8, 2014

Cite For

Insufficient Mitigating Evidence Under Guideline F
Importance of National Security in Clearance Determinations
Burden of Persuasion on the Applicant for Mitigation

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the applicant after the Department of Defense denied their request for a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and that not all evidence was considered. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it sustainable based on the record.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMichael H. Leonard — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant argued that the adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant contended that the Judge did not consider all of the record evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's concerns regarding the lack of mitigating and corroborating evidence were valid and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
William S. Fields

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: The Judge’s concern about the paucity of mitigating and corroborating evidence is valid. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 13-01332.a1 DATE: 08/08/2014 DATE: August 8, 2014 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 13-01332

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On February 6, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On June 13, 2014, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge considered all of the record evidence and whether the adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant has ten collection or charge-off accounts totaling $12,000. The ten accounts are unresolved. Applicant submitted documentation showing settlement offers for debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b. Applicant alleged that the debt in ¶ 1.a appears also in ¶¶ 1.dand 1.f. Applicant provided no documentation of payments on these debts. Furthermore, the Judge did not find the debts alleged in ¶ 1.dand ¶ 1.fwere the same the debt alleged in ¶ 1.a. Applicant asserted that five other debts alleged in the SOR were settled or will be settled. Applicant provided no corroboration for those claims. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s circumstances raised Guideline F concerns. The Judge was not able to conclude that the quantum of evidence provided by Applicant was sufficient to mitigate the government’s security concerns.

DISCUSSION

Applicant submitted new evidence which the Board cannot consider. Directive E3.1.29. Applicant takes issue with the Judge’s conclusion that three of the debts are not duplicative. A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-107589 at 2 (App. Bd. May 21, 2013). Even if the Judge’s conclusion on this issue was not sustainable, it would not be outcome determinative, given the absence of evidence of payment which was the gravamen of the Judge’s analysis. The Judge’s stated concerns about the paucity of mitigating and corroborating evidence in the record are valid. (In a DOHA adjudication the applicant bears the burden of persuasion as to mitigation. Directive ¶ E3.1.15.) The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The Judge’s adverse decision is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed; William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board