CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-03754.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-03754.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03754.a1

Mar 15, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A Defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant had several delinquent debts, with only one of nine listed debts resolved. The judge found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that his financial problems were beyond his control or that he made a good faith effort to resolve his debts.

Specifically, the applicant did not provide evidence of contacting creditors or that his financial issues were due to circumstances beyond his control. Additionally, the applicant failed to submit character evidence to support his case.

Based on these factors, the applicant's appeal was denied, upholding the initial security clearance denial.

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 issuedSep 5, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 8, 2015
Decision dateMar 15, 2015

Cite For

Failure to Demonstrate Good Faith Effort to Resolve Debts Under Guideline F
Lack of Evidence Showing Financial Issues Were Beyond the Applicant's Control
Importance of Character Evidence in Financial Clearance Cases

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 concerned the denial of a security clearance based on 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 or conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — 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 considered all evidence and did not weigh it in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The decision was supported by substantial evidence and followed required procedures.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
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

APPEARANCES

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 has been employed by a Defense contractor since early 2013. He has been constantly employed since 2002. He has several delinquent debts, for a line of credit, loans, etc. The Judge found that he had resolved only one of the nine SOR debts. Applicant has hired a credit consultant to assist him in correcting inaccuracies in his credit reports. The firm began addressing Applicant’s problems in 2012. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge stated that Applicant had not presented evidence of having contacted creditors. He noted that Applicant had supplied no evidence that his financial problems were the result of circumstances beyond his control, such as an economic downturn, unexpected medical expenses, etc.2 He also stated that the credit consulting firm did not advise whether it was providing Applicant with advice or assistance concerning his financial situation. The Judge stated that the mere fact that some of Applicant’s debts were beyond the statute of limitations was not a basis for concluding that he had initiated a good-faith effort to pay them. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge noted that Applicant had not submitted any sort of character evidence. He said that the likelihood that the SOR debts are no longer collectible does not relieve Applicant of his obligation to resolve them.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to his favorable evidence, such as his credit counseling firm and the successful resolution of one of the debts alleged in the SOR. The Judge made findings about this evidence. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither has he made a persuasive argument that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-10255 at 5 (App. Bd. Jul. 28, 2014). Applicant has cited to some Hearing Office decisions in his Appeal Brief. We give these decisions due consideration as persuasive authority. Hearing Office cases are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00279 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 23, 2015). The decisions that Applicant has cited do not demonstrate that the Judge erred in his analysis of Applicant’s circumstances. 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 E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 The Record copy of the Decision is missing page 7. The Appeal Board obtained the page from the DOHA web site. KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence. Neither has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Hearing Office decisions are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-03754.a1 DATE: 03/15/2015 DATE: March 19, 2015 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-03754 APPEAL BOARD DECISION APPEARANCES FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Ryan C. Nerney, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On September 5, 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 January 8, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.1 Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.

2 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(b): “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation,) and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.”