CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-00210.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-00210.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-00210.a1

Jan 7, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A government contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to delinquent debts exceeding $17,000 and insufficient evidence of financial responsibility. The applicant's financial circumstances raised significant concerns, specifically under disqualifying conditions F.1 and F.2.

While the applicant demonstrated some efforts toward debt resolution, they failed to provide adequate corroborating evidence for claims of negotiating settlements with creditors. Furthermore, the applicant did not sufficiently disclose their financial situation, lacking sufficient evidence of income, expenses, or comprehensive efforts to resolve the outstanding debts.

Despite the potential applicability of mitigating conditions F.3, F.4, and F.5, the appeal board affirmed the denial. The decision cited a lack of persuasive evidence to mitigate the financial concerns, ultimately leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

F.3rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s ControlAlthough the applicant experienced unemployment, she did not demonstrate responsible action regarding the debts.
F.4notedThe Individual Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Financial Problem
F.5rejectedThe Individual Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant did not provide evidence of payments or contact with creditors.

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 issuedMar 19, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 17, 2014Decision on written record.
Decision dateJan 7, 2015

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of Corroborating Evidence in Debt Resolution Claims
Burden of Persuasion Lies with the Applicant to Demonstrate Financial Responsibility

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 involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns regarding her delinquent debts.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — 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
Applicant argued that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were based on substantial evidence and that the applicant did not meet her burden of persuasion to mitigate the security concerns raised by her financial issues. The decision was consistent with the evidence presented and did not contravene the weight of the evidence.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealBurden of persuasion

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

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: Applicant had not provided any information about her income, expenses, or her husband’s circumstances. The available information was not sufficient to mitigate the concerns arising from Applicant’s delinquent debts. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-00210.a1 DATE: 01/07/2015 DATE: January 7, 2015 In Re: ---------------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-00210

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 March 19, 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 October 17, 2014, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision ran contrary to the weight of the record evidence and, therefore, was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant is employed by a Government contractor. A high school graduate, she and her husband have two adult offspring, one of whom is serving in the U.S. military. Applicant experienced a period of unemployment from the middle of 2012 until the middle of 2013, at which point she was hired by her current employer. Applicant’s SOR alleges four debts that total over $17,000. ¶ 1(a) refers to a judgment against Applicant in the amount of $6,423. She claims that ¶ (b), a collection account in the amount of $9,553, is a repetition of this debt, which arose from a delinquent credit card account. She advised that the account became delinquent in 2006, during a time in which her husband was unemployed due to illness. In her security clearance application (SCA), Applicant claimed that she was negotiating a settlement with the creditor of 1(b). She did not corroborate any contact with this creditor. In her answer to the SOR, Applicant stated that 1(b) no longer appeared on her credit report but that the debt alleged in 1(a) did appear on it. She stated her belief that these two allegations refer to one underlying debt and that she had filed a dispute with the credit bureaus. She asked that 1(a) be removed from her credit report. The Judge found that Applicant presented insufficient evidence that the two allegations address the same debt. Neither did she present documentary evidence showing the outcome of her dispute with the credit bureaus. Applicant has not presented documentary evidence to corroborate any payments or other efforts to resolve these debts. Applicant’s November 2013 credit report shows 14 accounts, including the four delinquent ones alleged in the SOR. The Judge stated that, without more evidence, it is not possible to determine if Applicant is financially overextended or living beyond her means. Applicant demonstrated resolution of the debts alleged at ¶¶ 1(c) and (d). She paid the former and successfully disputed the latter. However, she provided little information about her current earnings and financial position. She provided no information about her monthly income and expenses, any income generated by her husband, or whether her income is sufficient to cover her ordinary expenses. She has provided no information concerning financial counseling or whether she has a budget. The Judge’s Analysis

FOOTNOTES

1 See Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 19(a): “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;” and ¶ 19(c): “a history of not meeting financial obligations[.]”

2 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(b): “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances[.]” The Judge concluded that Applicant’s financial circumstances raised concerns under Guideline F.1 He resolved SOR ¶¶ 1(c) and (d) in Applicant’s favor. However, he concluded that she had not met her burden of persuasion regarding the other two allegations. Although he noted evidence that Applicant and her husband had experienced unemployment, which were circumstances beyond their control, he concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to the two debts at issue.2 He noted that she had not presented evidence to show payments or contact with creditors, except for disputing them on the ground that she believes they are not collectible. He also stated that she had provided no information about her income, expenses, or her husband’s circumstances. He concluded that the available information is not sufficient to mitigate the concerns arising from Applicant’s delinquent debts. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to evidence that Applicant “seems to be on the path to establish financial responsibility.” Decision at 6. However, he reiterated his conclusion that she had not presented enough evidence to show responsible action regarding the two large delinquent debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ (a) and (b). Discussion Applicant argues that the Judge did not properly interpret the evidence. She states that the record shows that her remaining debts have been paid rather than merely disputed. To the extent that she is arguing the Judge’s findings are erroneous, we conclude that Applicant’s admission to the SOR, her statements in the SCA, and her credit report support the Judge’s findings. The findings are based upon substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014). Given the record that was before him, the Judge’s findings and conclusions regarding the absence of corroboration are sustainable. To the extent that Applicant is arguing that the Judge erred in concluding that the record raised security concerns, we note the evidence described above: Applicant admitted the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1 (a), both 1(a) and (b) were contained in her credit report, and she discussed her financial problems in her SCA. A credit report itself is often sufficient to meet the Government’s burden of producing evidence of security concern. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00987 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 14, 2014). Insofar as the Directive presumes a nexus between admitted or proven conduct and an applicant’s security worthiness, the Judge did not err in his conclusion that the evidence raised concerns under Guideline F. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00114 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 30, 2014). We have examined the Judge’s decision in light of the record as a whole. His conclusions about the paucity of mitigating evidence are consistent with the record that was before him. An applicant bears the burden of persuasion to mitigate the concerns raised by his or her conduct or circumstances. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. In this case, the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had not met that burden is supportable. His decision did not contravene the weight of the evidence. The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board