CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-03688.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-03688.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03688.a1

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

Summary

A defense contractor's security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to delinquent student loans. The judge determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate good faith in resolving these debts, citing a lack of consistent repayment despite having the financial capacity to do so.

Specifically, the applicant took no meaningful action to address the outstanding debts until after receiving the Statement of Reasons (SOR). This inaction, coupled with the absence of a sustained repayment history, led to the conclusion that the financial issues presented an unacceptable risk to national security.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20(a), which addresses a history of not meeting financial obligations. The applicant's failure to actively manage and repay the delinquent student loans was the primary factor in the denial decision.

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 interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 26, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 4, 2015
Decision dateAug 18, 2015

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Importance of a Repayment Track Record in Financial Considerations
Good Faith Efforts in Addressing Debts as a Mitigating Factor

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 who was denied 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 analysis of the applicant's financial situation.

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 argued that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no basis to conclude that the Judge misweighed the evidence, affirming the adverse decision.

Standard of review applied

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

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 DIGEST: Reading the Decision as a whole, we find no basis to conclude that the Judge mis- weighed the evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-03688.a1 DATE: 08/18/2015 DATE: August 18, 2015 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-03688

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Gregory F. Greiner, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On September 26, 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 4, 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 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, a job he has held since late 2005. He seeks to retain a security clearance. Applicant’s SOR alleges several delinquent debts, the majority of which are for delinquent, Federally-guaranteed student loans. He has attended three colleges, without obtaining a degree. His attendance at one of them, a technical college, was financed by the student loans that are at issue in this case. Applicant received deferments on repayment until he finished school. Once he did, however, he did not begin repayment. He states that, when the loans became due, he was not making enough to pay. He claims to have had a repayment plan for one of the loans, but was unable to keep up with it. He has had his loans placed in forbearance, which ends in 2015. In addition to Federally-guaranteed loans, Applicant also took out loans directly from the Federal Government. These also became delinquent, but Applicant has repaid them by borrowing money from his parents. Applicant and his wife currently net about $8,200 monthly. The Judge found that five of the allegations are repeats of others. The Judge’s Analysis In concluding that Applicant had not mitigated the concerns arising from his delinquent student loans, the Judge stated that they were recent and cannot be considered unlikely to recur, insofar as Applicant took no steps to contact the creditors. Noting that much of Applicant’s efforts at addressing his debts occurred after the receipt of the SOR, the Judge concluded that these efforts do not reflect “good-faith” to the extent that would serve to mitigate the concerns arising from the debts. He also stated that there is no reason to believe that Applicant has received financial counseling, nor has he established a track record of debt payment.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to record evidence in support of his argument that the Judge’s analysis was flawed. This evidence includes his testimony that he initially did not have the means to repay his debts, his testimony that he had attempted a payment plan before the issuance of the SOR, his steady employment for many years, etc. A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-04413 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 16, 2012). The Judge made findings about the evidence that Applicant has cited. He noted, however, that Applicant’s testimony about the earlier repayment plan was not corroborated. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. The Judge based his decision on evidence that Applicant (1) made no effort to contact the lenders when his finances impaired his ability to pay; (2) failed to maintain regular payments though possessing the means to do so; (3) took no meaningful action on the debts until after he received the SOR; and (4) still has no track record of repayment. The Judge’s conclusion that these factors outweigh any matters in mitigation in sustainable. Reading the Decision in light of the record as a whole, we find no basis to conclude that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00786 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Mar. 28, 2014). The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. Promises to pay off delinquent debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of paying debts in a timely manner. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00714 at 3 (App. Bd. May 27, 2015). “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