CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-03228.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-03228.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03228.a1

Jul 27, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 36-year-old defense contractor and former U.S. Navy member was denied a security clearance primarily under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), with additional concerns related to alcohol use. The applicant admitted to allegations concerning unresolved financial issues and two alcohol-related arrests.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide evidence that any of the overdue debts had been resolved or reduced. Furthermore, the applicant did not sufficiently address their financial difficulties or demonstrate current financial stability.

The recency of the alcohol-related charges and the lack of evidence regarding their disposition also contributed to the decision, as mitigating conditions were deemed inapplicable. Consequently, the appeal board affirmed the adverse decision, resulting in the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 21raisedAlcohol Consumption

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 issuedJan 20, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldApr 27, 2016
Decision dateJul 27, 2016Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Failure to Demonstrate Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Unresolved Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Recency of Alcohol-related Offenses Affecting Clearance Decisions

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 after being denied due to financial considerations and alcohol consumption issues. The applicant argued that the Administrative Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's decision-making process.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMartin H. Mogul — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline G

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's arguments did not demonstrate that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance based on the applicant's financial issues and alcohol-related arrests.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealNo de-novo re-decisionSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
James F. Duffy

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: We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-03228.a1 DATE: 07/27/2016 DATE: July 27, 2016 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-03228

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 January 20, 2015, 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 G (Alcohol Consumption) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On April 27, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul 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 is a 36-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He served in the U.S. Navy from 2002 to 2010. He is unmarried and has one child. The SOR alleged six overdue debts totaling about $27,000 and two alcohol-related arrests. Applicant submitted a Lien Release Notice showing a tax lien for about $1,050 was filed in error. The Judge found that Applicant did not submit evidence showing any of the remaining debts had been resolved or reduced. Applicant wrote that he encountered financial difficulty in transitioning from the Navy to civilian life. He offered no evidence that his current financial situation would enable him to resolve his overdue debts or stay current with his present debts. In 2007, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). He was found guilty of reckless driving and sentenced to a fine and suspension of his driver’s license for one year. In 2014, he was arrested and charged with DUI and related driving offenses. The trial was scheduled for a month after the SOR was issued. In his Response to the SOR, Applicant admitted both allegations under the alcohol consumption guideline and stated that he typically does not drink and, because of significant weight loss, did not realize that he exceeded the alcohol limit during the latest incident. He indicated this was a horrible mistake that will never happen again. In his Response to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), he submitted no evidence concerning the disposition of the latest charges. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the tax lien and against him on the remaining debts. For those remaining debts, the Judge concluded that no evidence was submitted to establish that Applicant has acted responsibly in attempting to resolve or reduce them. The Judge also concluded that none of the mitigating conditions under the alcohol consumption guideline applied, noting the recency of he 2014 charges and the lack of evidence about the disposition of those charges.

DISCUSSION

Much of Applicant’s appeal brief asserts matters from outside the record, including documents that post-date the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant cites to his efforts at addressing his debts and notes he was previously unable to provide information about the disposition of his latest charges and his completion of an alcohol awareness program. However, Applicant has not undermined the Judge’s finding about the lack of evidence in the record concerning such matters. Applicant’s arguments essentially amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. Those arguments, however, are not enough to show the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04719 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2016).

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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board