CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-03133.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-03133.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03133.a1

Apr 8, 2015· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor and former military service member was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant child support arrears. The applicant owed approximately $36,000 in child support, which was identified as a disqualifying condition (F.3.a).

Despite the applicant's claims of financial difficulties and a ten-month period of unemployment, the judge determined that insufficient meaningful steps had been taken to resolve these financial issues since re-employment. The applicant's explanations for the financial problems were not considered sufficient to mitigate the security concerns raised by the outstanding debt.

Consequently, the judge concluded that granting a security clearance was not consistent with national security interests, and the application was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3.araisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

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 issuedAug 20, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 20, 2015
Decision dateApr 8, 2015

Cite For

Significant Child Support Arrears as a Disqualifying Condition Under Guideline F
Lack of Meaningful Steps to Resolve Financial Issues as a Basis for Denial
The Standard for Granting a Security Clearance Related to National Security Interests

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 considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the weighing of evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJames F. Duffy — 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 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 did not weigh the evidence in an arbitrary or capricious manner and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. The applicant's disagreement with the Judge's findings did not constitute a harmful error.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo 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 has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither is his disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-03133.a1 DATE: 04/08/2015 DATE: April 8, 2015 In Re: -------------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-03133

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 August 20, 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 January 20, 2015, after the hearing, 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 adverse 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, having begun his employment in 2013. He served in the U.S. military from 2002 to 2012. Applicant was married to his previous wife from 2005 to 2008, with whom he had a child. He has two other children from his current marriage. Applicant has held a security clearance from 2001 until 2011 without incident. Applicant’s SOR contains a single allegation, that he has a child support arrearage in the amount of nearly $21,000. Applicant attributed this problem to the ten months of unemployment he experienced after leaving he military. He stated that he was in the process of hiring an attorney to assist him in resolving the issue. While Applicant was in the military, he was the subject of a proceeding to determine if he should be retained on active duty. Upon the advice of a Judge Advocate, Applicant waived his entitlement to an administrative board, submitting a “resignation in lieu of elimination.” Decision at 3. Applicant had planned to join the National Guard but learned that his resignation made him ineligible. He is seeking a correction to his military records to enable him to serve in the Guard. At the hearing, Applicant admitted that he had not been making his monthly child support payments. He estimated his arrearage at about $36,000. He stated that he does not have a good relationship with his ex-wife and that the two have virtually no contact with each other. Although he has not formally retained the lawyer with whom he has spoken, this person did advise Applicant to set aside some money for child support payments. While he was in the military, Applicant deployed to an overseas location for a year. He believes that this led to the breakup of his marriage, although he had separated from his wife prior to his deployment. In the military, Applicant was earning about $91,000 annually. He currently makes around $52,000 and his wife earns about $24,000. Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for his honesty, dedication, and work ethic. He submitted a number of letters supporting his effort to join the National Guard. He received a commendation medal and campaign med while in the military, along with other personal and unit decorations. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge found Applicant’s child support delinquencies to be “ongoing and significant.” Id. at 6. Though noting Applicant’s unemployment, which was a circumstance outside his control, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not acted responsibly in regard to his debt. He stated, “[Applicant] has taken no meaningful steps to resolve this financial problem since obtaining his current job. He has failed to show that his financial problems are being resolved and will not recur.” Id. The Judge cited to Applicant’s character references and other evidence favorable to him but concluded that this evidence was outweighed by his lack to attention to his child support obligations. Accordingly, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not mitigated the security concern arising from his child support debt.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to his favorable evidence, arguing that the Judge did not consider it. He disagrees with the weight that the Judge assigned to his child support difficulties relative to his character evidence. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither is his disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence sufficient 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. 14-00631 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Feb. 13, 2015). Applicant argues that without a clearance he will not be able to keep his job. However, we are not permitted to consider the impact that an adverse decision may have upon an applicant. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00546 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 2, 2013). The Judge’s 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal BoardKEYWORD: Guideline F