CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-00330.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-00330.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-00330.a1

Jan 13, 2015· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A retired military member with two advanced degrees was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. The applicant had two delinquent debts totaling $28,176, which included a default judgment against his business. These issues raised disqualifying condition F.1.

Despite the applicant's military service and previous clearance, the appeal board affirmed the denial. The board found that the applicant provided no proof of payments toward his delinquent debts and failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve them.

While mitigating condition F.2 was considered, the lack of evidence regarding debt payments and insufficient character evidence ultimately led to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

F.2rejectedMitigating ConditionsThe applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims regarding debt payments.

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 28, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateJan 13, 2015

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Debt Payments Under Guideline F
Lack of Character Evidence Impacting Clearance Suitability
Affirmation of Denial Despite Prior Military Service and Clearance History

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 who was denied a security clearance due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial issues raised.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJames F. Duffy — 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 decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to address his financial issues. The Judge's findings were not arbitrary or capricious, and the applicant was adequately informed of his rights and responsibilities.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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 was advised of his rights. Pro se Applicants are expected to take reasonable steps to protect their rights. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-00330.a1 DATE: 01/13/2015 DATE: January 13, 2015 In Re: ----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-00330

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 28, 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 September 19, 2014, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge James F. Duffy 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 decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant works for a Defense contractor. He retired from the U.S. military and holds two advanced degrees. He held a security clearance while in the military. Applicant operated a part- time real estate business, working as a broker for the firm since 2005. Applicant’s SOR alleges two delinquent debts, totaling $28,176. SOR ¶ 1(a) resulted from a default judgment in excess of $21,000 entered against Applicant’s business. A complaint against Applicant personally was dismissed, though the reason for this is not contained in the record. Applicant disputed this debt with the credit reporting agencies. SOR ¶ 1(b) was an unpaid collection account, credit reports listing it as in excess of $6,000. Applicant’s SOR answer stated that this was for a credit card that became delinquent during the decline of the real estate market. Applicant claimed to be making monthly payments of $50 toward satisfaction of this debt. Applicant provided no proof of payments toward his delinquent debts. Neither did he submit evidence of his work performance, his history with handling sensitive information, or his character. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s circumstances raised concerns under Guideline F. He concluded that there was insufficient evidence of a basis for Applicant’s dispute of ¶ 1(a), precluding favorable application of Mitigating Condition 20(e). He stated that Applicant’s debts are ongoing, significant, and long-standing. He stated that, though Applicant attributed his problems to the collapse of the real estate market, he has failed to demonstrate responsible action in regard to his debts. The Judge noted that Applicant provided no information about his monthly income, expenses, or debt payments. The Judge also concluded that Applicant failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to pay his debts. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge noted Applicant’s military service and clean criminal record. However, he stated that Applicant’s financial problem remained a concern, leaving the Judge with doubts about Applicant’s suitability for a clearance.

DISCUSSION

Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding that he had provided no proof of debt payment. The record contains the explanations Applicant provided in his Answer to the SOR addressing payments on the credit card debt. However, there is no corroborating evidence for these explanations in the form of receipts, cancelled checks, statements from creditors, etc. Moreover, aside from evidence that the default judgment was entered against Applicant’s company rather than against him personally, there is nothing to show that this debt is being resolved. The Judge’s material findings of security concern are based upon “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. Applicant contends that he did not know he had to submit information about his professional performance, etc. He states that had he known such information was required, he could have provided it. We note the Judge’s finding that Applicant provided no character evidence. However, we find no reason to conclude that, but for this failure, the Judge would have given Applicant a clearance. In any event, Applicant was advised, in the File of Relevant Material (FORM), in a letter from DOHA administrative personnel accompanying the FORM, and in the Directive, that he was permitted to submit evidence in mitigation, extenuation, rebuttal, etc. Nevertheless, Applicant provided nothing in response to the FORM. In fact, the letter from DOHA stated that Applicant could provide “any material” that he wished. Although pro se Applicants are not expected to present their cases as if they were lawyers, they should take reasonable steps to protect their rights. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-14723 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 3, 2014). In this case, the information that DOHA provided Applicant was sufficient to apprise a reasonable person of his or her right to submit evidence. We find no reason to believe that Applicant was denied his due process rights. Applicant’s brief cites to record evidence, such as his having held a clearance for many years without incident or concern. Applicant’s argument is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-00725 at 3 (App. Bd. (Oct 3, 2014). Applicant’s brief refers to matters from outside the record. We are not permitted to consider new evidence on appeal. 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 Judge’s 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board