CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-04565.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-04565.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-04565.a1

Sep 18, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A single female veteran, who served in the U.S. military from 2004 to 2009, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from unresolved delinquent debts exceeding $13,000, with a significant portion charged off or sent to collections.

The applicant's claims of financial responsibility and stable employment were not adequately supported by her payment history. The judge found insufficient evidence of timely payments or responsible conduct regarding these debts, specifically citing Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20(a).

Ultimately, the lack of substantiated responsible action concerning her outstanding financial obligations led to the denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Promises to pay off delinquent debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of paying debts in a timely manner and otherwise acting in a financially responsible manner.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 15, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 23, 2015
Decision dateSep 18, 2015

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Despite Claims of Stable Employment
Importance of a Track Record of Timely Payments in Financial Considerations 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 involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Administrative Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant's future promises to pay debts were insufficient to demonstrate financial responsibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMartin H. Mogul — 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 findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge did not err in his analysis of the Applicant's financial situation. The Board concluded that promises to pay debts in the future do not substitute for a track record of timely payments.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
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: Promises to pay delinquent debts are not a substitute for a track record of timely payments and other financially responsible conduct. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-04565.a1 DATE: 09/18/2015 DATE: September 18, 2015 In Re: ----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-04565

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 15, 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 April 23, 2015, 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 adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant is single. She served in the U.S. military from 2004 until 2009, when she was discharged due to a medical problem. Her SOR lists several delinquent debts, totaling over $13,000, most of which the Judge resolved in her favor. Four, however, he concluded had not been mitigated. These were accounts that had been charged off and/or sent to collection and that totaled over $10,000. The Judge noted Applicant’s statements to the effect that she had entered into agreements for two of them, although she submitted little evidence showing a track record of payment. The largest of these four, a charged off account of over $7,000, had been the subject of settlement negotiations that had not resulted in an agreement. Applicant attributed her financial problems to unemployment following her discharge from the military. She states that she now has stable employment and has either paid off some of her debts or is complying with payment arrangements. Applicant’s budget shows a net monthly remainder of $1,000. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge cited to evidence that Applicant had resolved a number of her smaller debts but that her two largest ones remained unresolved or unreduced by the close of the record. He also noted that she had demonstrated only one payment on the next largest debt. He concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to her debts.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief includes matters from outside the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. She cites to her efforts to resolve her largest debts, arguing that the Judge did not consider them. A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record, and Applicant’s argument is not enough to rebut that presumption. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00597 at 3 (App. Bd. July 16, 2015). Applicant argues for an alternative interpretation of the evidence, which is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Id. Given the Judge’s sustainable findings about Applicant’s financial situation as of the close of the record, including her monthly bank balance, we cannot say that his analysis of Applicant’s case for mitigation was erroneous. Regarding her largest debt, Applicant stated in her reply to the SOR that she intended to resolve it at some point in the future. However, promises to pay off delinquent debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of paying debts in a timely manner and otherwise acting in a financially responsible manner. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14- 03069 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 30, 2015). Moreover, we conclude that the Judge did not err in the weight that he extended to the two debts that were the subject of payment plans, given the relative paucity of evidence that would show actual payments over a period of time. 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board