CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-01077.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-01077.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-01077.a1

Sep 18, 2015· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A 34-year-old applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to significant and ongoing financial issues. The applicant had 11 delinquent accounts totaling nearly $34,000 and failed to file multiple state and federal tax returns.

The judge determined that the applicant did not demonstrate responsible financial management or sufficient good-faith efforts to resolve the debts. Actions to address the financial difficulties, including the delinquent accounts and unfiled tax returns, only began after the applicant received the Statement of Reasons (SOR).

Given the recent and ongoing nature of the financial problems and the lack of proactive resolution efforts, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 7, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 29, 2015
Decision dateSep 18, 2015

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Financial Responsibility for Security Clearance Eligibility
Insufficient Evidence of Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts as a Basis for Denial

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 a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and did not consider all evidence. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's reasoning or conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge's decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the Judge properly considered the evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance. The concerns under Guideline F were deemed sufficient based on the evidence of ongoing debts and the applicant's lack of timely action to resolve them.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

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: A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence. In this case the Judge discussed the evidence that Applicant believes was ignored. Adverse decision affirmed CASENO: 14-01077.a1 DATE: 09/18/2015 DATE: September 18, 2015 In Re: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-01077

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Alan V. Edmunds, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On May 7, 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 hearing. On June 29, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr. denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed, pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable security clearance decision. The Judge found: Applicant is 34 years old. She admits to having 11 delinquent accounts totaling nearly $34,000. She also admits not filing her 2008 and 2012 state income tax returns. However, she denies not filing her 2012 Federal income tax return. Her debts became delinquent between May 2011 and August 2013. Applicant dates her financial problems to 2011 when her second child was born, after which she was out of the work force on disability for a time and then worked for a subsequent time at a much lower salary rate. She also attributed her trouble to the Government shutdown in October 2013, when her husband received no salary. She acknowledged that her husband was eventually paid for time lost, but the money was used for other bills instead of keeping up with mortgage payments and the other debts listed in the SOR. Applicant began earning more than $80,000 per year in late 2013 and has been earning over $100,000 per year since 2014. Her husband earns more than $80,000 per year. Applicant paid a $200 debt after the SOR was issued. Along with her husband she began paying the IRS $200 a month in 2014. The couple entered into a loan modification plan on their mortgage with payments to begin in late 2014. Applicant claims that she has been unable to locate the creditors on three medical debts. She has not resolved those debts, or any of the four remaining debts, plus a state income tax filing. Applicant attributes her failures to file state and Federal income tax returns, and the ensuing tax liabilities to confusion about how to account for their move between states and her husband’s transition from military to civilian employment. She acknowledges that she and her husband just did not get around to filing their state income tax return for 2012. The Judge concluded: Between at least April 2013 and May 2014, when she received the SOR, Applicant took no action to resolve the SOR debts, despite clearly possessing the means to do so. With the possible exception of the mortgage, Applicant documented no communications with her creditors until after the SOR was issued. Her financial difficulties are recent, not infrequent, and are ongoing. The circumstances she cites as the cause of her indebtedness can be considered largely beyond her control, but she cannot be considered to have acted responsibly under the circumstances, because she took no action to resolve her debts until she received the SOR. Her recent start of a repayment plan on her mortgage has not continued long enough to consider it a good-faith effort to resolve indebtedness. At least seven of her debts remain completely unaddressed. She has not received credit or financial counseling. Applicant has not demonstrated that these delinquent debts are being resolved in an expeditious manner.

Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all of the evidence in the record, citing to evidence that the birth of her second child adversely affected her finances and the evidence also showed that she had resolved some of her debts. A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence of record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-01578 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 24, 2014). Applicant has not rebutted this presumption. The evidence that Applicant argues the Judge ignored is specifically discussed in his decision. Applicant’s citation to favorable evidence is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00998 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 19, 2015). Applicant argues that because she is trustworthy and has made arrangements or has successfully satisfied some of the debts, thus indicating her ability to satisfy the remaining debts, the concerns under Guideline F are largely inapplicable. However, evidence of Applicant’s ongoing debts and her dilatory efforts at addressing them are sufficient to raise Guideline F concerns. The Directive presumes a nexus between admitted or proven conduct under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s worthiness for a clearance. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-01295 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan 20, 2015). The Board gives due consideration to the Hearing Office cases that Applicant has cited. However, Hearing Office decisions are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-01297 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2015). The Judge examined the relevant evidence 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 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 of the Judge 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