CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-02791.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-02791.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02791.a1

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

Summary

A retired military member and current defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The primary issue involved unresolved delinquent debts, some of which had been reduced to judgment.

The applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable actions to address these financial difficulties. While the applicant claimed to be overwhelmed by financial management, these claims were not supported by evidence of effective debt resolution. Disqualifying conditions F3 and F4 were raised, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations and an unwillingness to resolve them.

Although some mitigating conditions (F2, F3) were applied, and there were favorable findings under Guideline E, the judge determined that the applicant did not sufficiently mitigate the ongoing financial issues. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F4raisedDelinquent Debts

Mitigating

F2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge found insufficient evidence to support this claim.
F3rejectedThe Person Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant did not provide corroborating evidence of efforts to resolve debts.

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 issuedJul 16, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 9, 2014
Decision dateFeb 13, 2015

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Unresolved Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Difficulties
Importance of Demonstrating Effective Debt Management for Security Clearance Eligibility

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 and personal conduct. 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 had not successfully addressed his financial issues.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

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 decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance. The Judge's comments regarding the Applicant's financial situation were not arbitrary or capricious, and the Applicant failed to demonstrate mitigation of the financial concerns raised.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
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; Guideline E DIGEST: The Board does not agree with Applicant’s interpretation of the Judge’s comments regarding Applicant’s wife and their checking account. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-02791.a1 DATE: 02/13/2015 DATE: February 13, 2015 In Re: ---------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-02791

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 July 16, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Department Counsel requested a hearing. On December 9, 2014, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran 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 was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline E are not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the following, we affirm the decision. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant has worked for his current employer, a Defense contractor, since 2003. He retired from the U.S. military and is currently attending college. Applicant divorced his first wife, marrying his current one later the same year. Applicant’s SOR alleges several delinquent debts. The Judge found five against Applicant. Some of the debts found against Applicant had been reduced to judgment. The debts were based upon voluntary repossession of a vehicle, a loan for the construction of a swimming pool, medical bills, and bills for telecommunication services. Concerning one of the telecom debts, Applicant stated that he is negotiating a payment plan. However, he later stated that he was unaware of the debt. Applicant contends that he is committed to resolving his delinquent debts. He stated that he had been unaware of the extent of his financial difficulties because both his previous wife and his current one handle the finances. The Judge noted that Applicant still has a joint checking account with his wife. Applicant finds the task of getting control over his finances to be “overwhelming,” admitting that he did not “have it fully grasped as of yet.” Decision at 5. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge resolved a majority of Applicant’s SOR debts in his favor. However, regarding the remaining five, he concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated mitigation. He noted evidence that Applicant still shared a checking account with his wife and that he was overwhelmed by the task of getting his finances in order. The Judge also stated that there was little evidence to show that Applicant had acted reasonably in regard to his debts and that his financial problems are ongoing. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge noted evidence of Applicant’s military service and stable work history. However, he stated that Applicant “still has far to go” in resolving his difficulties. The Judge noted that Applicant had not corroborated his claims about debt repayment. Id. at 9.

DISCUSSION

Applicant has submitted evidence about debt resolution that was not included in the record and, indeed, which post dates the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant cites to record evidence about his efforts at debt resolution. His arguments are not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01669 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 29, 2015). Applicant disagrees with what he views as the Judge’s recommendation that he drop his wife from the checking account. We note that the Judge never made that explicit recommendation, but he did note that Applicant’s wife remains on the account. Insofar as Applicant had identified his wife’s stewardship of the family finances as a contributing factor to their problems, it was not an error for the Judge to comment on it in his Analysis. We do not read the Decision as meaning that the Judge denied Applicant a clearance because his wife’s name is still on the checking account. He appears to have denied the clearance because Applicant has shown no success in addressing his delinquent debts or their root causes. 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, 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