CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-03722.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-03722.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03722.a1

Dec 11, 2015· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A military veteran and long-term employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 18 delinquent debts totaling over $25,000. The appeal board upheld the denial, citing the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence of financial responsibility or mitigating circumstances.

The disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20 were raised, specifically concerning the significant number and amount of outstanding debts. The judge noted the absence of independent evidence demonstrating the applicant had taken steps to resolve these financial issues.

Crucially, there was no evidence presented of financial counseling or other proactive measures taken to address the debts. This lack of demonstrated effort to mitigate the financial concerns contributed to the final decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial 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 issuedOct 30, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 13, 2015
Decision dateDec 11, 2015

Cite For

Importance of Demonstrating Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Burden of Persuasion Lies with the Applicant Regarding Financial Issues
Delinquent Debts Can Impact Judgment and Self-control Relevant to National Security

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 concerns under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial issues.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

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's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant failed to meet the burden of persuasion regarding financial considerations.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealBurden of persuasion

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 the evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-03722.a1 DATE: 12/11/2015 DATE: December 11, 2015 In Re: --------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-03722

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 October 30, 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 decision on the written record. On October 13, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley 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 served in the U.S. military from 1981 to 1987. He has worked for his current employer since 1995 and disclosed no periods of unemployment. Between 2008 and 2012, Applicant acquired 18 delinquent debts, totaling over $25,000. Applicant stated that he had either paid these debts or had them removed from his credit reports. One of the debts was for a judgment that was satisfied through garnishment. Applicant turned over the remainder to a credit repair firm in order to dispute the debts. Applicant asserted that the firm was successful in having his debts removed from his credit reports, but he provided no independent evidence as to when or for what reason they were removed. The Judge concluded that, without such evidence, he could drawn no inferences about the circumstances underlying Applicant’s financial situation. He also noted that Applicant did not provide documentary evidence of any extenuating circumstances that might have had an impact on his financial situation. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge stated that Applicant had presented no evidence of circumstances beyond his control that affected his financial problems, nor had he demonstrated that he had acted responsibly in regard to his debts. He stated that, without evidence of financial counseling or of steps taken to address his debts, “mitigation credit is very limited.” Decision at 5. In the whole-person analysis the Judge reiterated his comments about the paucity of mitigating evidence in the record.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s appeal includes evidence that was not contained in the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant’s brief cites to record evidence that his debts had been removed from his credit reports. The Judge made findings about this evidence and discussed it in his analysis of Applicant’s circumstances. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-08412 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 11, 2015). As the Judge noted, it is an applicant’s responsibility to present evidence in extenuation or mitigation. Moreover, the applicant bears the burden of persuasion. Decision at 4-5; Directive ¶ E3.1.15. In this case, the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had failed to a meet his burden of persuasion is supportable. Delinquent debts may cast doubt upon an applicant’s judgment, self control, and other characteristics essential to protecting national security information. Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 18; See also ISCR Case No. 14-01479 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 2, 2015). Debts can be dropped from credit reports for a number of reasons. Evidence that debts are no longer listed on credit reports, in and of itself, may be entitled to minimal weight in the absence of further evidence that the debts have actually been paid or settled, that they are not legitimately the applicant’s, that they arose from causes outside the applicant’s control and that he acted responsibly, or other circumstances that demonstrate good judgment, self-control, etc. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03612 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 25, 2015). 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board