CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-04201.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-04201.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-04201.a1

Jul 13, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance primarily under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $69,000 in delinquent debts. The judge identified disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 20.

Despite the applicant's claims of financial improvement, the judge found these assertions not credible and noted a lack of corroborating evidence for debt resolution. While mitigating conditions AG ¶ 21(a), AG ¶ 21(b), and AG ¶ 21(c) were considered, they were insufficient to overcome the security concerns.

The denial emphasized that the applicant's financial situation did not align with national security interests, leading to the final decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not Recent.The judge found insufficient evidence of responsible action regarding debt resolution.
AG ¶ 21(b)appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Beyond the Person's Control.The judge acknowledged circumstances outside the applicant's control but found them insufficient for mitigation.
AG ¶ 21(c)rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem.The applicant's recent promise to address debts was not credible.

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 issuedNov 7, 2014
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldApr 11, 2016
Decision dateJul 13, 2016Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution Under Guideline F
Credibility of Applicant's Claims Regarding Financial Improvement
The Necessity of Clearance Decisions Aligning with 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 a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant argued that the Judge misapplied mitigating conditions. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the applicant had only qualified for partial mitigation of the security concerns raised.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge failed properly to apply the mitigating conditions.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge reasonably explained his conclusions regarding the applicant's financial situation and the application of mitigating conditions. The decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious.

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 Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
William S. Fields

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: The Judge made extensive findings about Applicant’s evidence and discussed it in the Analysis portion of the decision. The Judge reasonably explained why he concluded that Applicant had only qualified for partial mitigation of the security concerns raised. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-04201.a1 DATE: 07/13/2016 DATE: July 13, 2016 In Re: ------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-04201

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 November 7, 2014, 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 E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On April 11, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. On April 22, 2016, the Judge vacated the decision and issued a corrected version, in order to address typographical errors in the first one. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge failed properly to apply the mitigating conditions. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline E are not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issues raised on appeal. Applicant’s SOR contains numerous delinquent debts, for such things as medical treatment, student loans totaling about $69,000, etc. The Judge found that Applicant did not corroborate his claims that he had resolved many of the debts. Applicant asked the Department of Education about a payment plan, but as of the date of the hearing no such plan had been effectuated. Applicant stated that his problems arose from a contentious divorce and from underemployment. During their marriage, Applicant’s wife handled the finances, and Applicant was not aware of their outstanding debts. She agreed that Applicant could pay a reduced amount of spousal support so that he could resolve his debts. His underemployment resulted from reduced work hours. He changed employers, with a resulting diminution in pay. Applicant acknowledged that he should have paid more attention to his finances. He stated that he had experienced no financial problems prior to his divorce. At the time he received the SOR he did not have the means to resolve his debts. He presented no evidence to show that he had contacted creditors, other than those holding student loans. There is no evidence that Applicant was living beyond his means. He has recently consulted with a financial counselor, and his ex-wife is helping him dispute some questionable entries on his credit report. Applicant enjoys a good reputation for honesty, trustworthiness, responsibility, etc. He has worked for Federal contractors for 15 years without a security incident. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions fully applied to Applicant’s circumstances. He noted a paucity of evidence regarding debt resolution, contact with creditors, etc. He stated that Applicant should have been more diligent in investigating his financial condition. The Judge concluded that a recent promise by Applicant to address his debts was not credible. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to evidence of circumstances outside Applicant’s control that affected his debts. However, he found that the record contained insufficient evidence of responsible action.

DISCUSSION

Applicant states that the decision contains statements that are not consistent. He appears to be referring to the problems in the first decision that the Judge corrected by means of the second one. Otherwise, Applicant cites to evidence of his divorce and his underemployment, arguing that he has mitigated the concerns alleged in the SOR. The Judge made extensive findings about Applicant’s evidence and discussed it in the Analysis portion of the decision. The Judge reasonably explained why he concluded that Applicant had only qualified for partial mitigation of the security concerns raised. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board