CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-04719.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-04719.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-04719.a1

Apr 6, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A former military member and defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The applicant had failed to file federal and state income tax returns for multiple years, raising significant financial concerns.

Additionally, the applicant demonstrated a history of alcohol dependency, evidenced by multiple DUIs and a relapse following treatment. While the applicant did attend Alcoholics Anonymous, this was not sufficient to mitigate the concerns.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant had not adequately resolved the issues related to financial irresponsibility and alcohol consumption.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's persistent noncompliance with tax obligations was noted.
AG ¶ 21raisedAlcohol ConsumptionThe applicant's history of DUIs and relapse into alcohol consumption were significant.

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 issuedFeb 13, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 21, 2016
Decision dateApr 6, 2016

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Denial of Security Clearance Due to Alcohol Dependency Under Guideline G
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Failure to Mitigate Security Concerns

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 alcohol consumption. 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 by the Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPersonal representative

Judge belowElizabeth M. Matchinski — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline G

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 made detailed findings regarding the Applicant's financial issues and alcohol problems, and the Applicant did not demonstrate that the Judge's decision was arbitrary or capricious. The Judge's analysis was thorough and supported by substantial evidence.

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
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; Guideline G DIGEST: The Judge made detailed findings about Applicant’s financial problems as well as his difficulties with alcohol and discussed the evidence in her analysis. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-04719.a1 DATE: 04/06/2016 DATE: April 6, 2016 In Re: -------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-04719

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT John Adamson, Personal Representative The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On February 13, 2015, 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 G (Alcohol Consumption) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On January 21, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski 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 has worked for a Defense contractor for several years. Her served in the U.S. military from 1982 to 2002, during which time he held a clearance. Applicant failed to file Federal income tax returns for tax years 2010 through 2013 and state income tax returns for tax years 2008 through 2013. He attributed these failures to his not having received the forms necessary to complete his returns. In addition, Applicant has delinquent debts for credit cards, etc. He has been making some payments toward his debts, including debts that were not alleged in the SOR. Applicant has been making payments of $600 a month on behalf of his daughter, who lives with his ex-spouse. Applicant has had problems with alcohol. While in the military he received non-judicial punishment for drinking before duty and for DUI. After leaving active duty he had two DUIs. His drinking increased to the point at which he consumed five to seven drinks each night. In 2013, Applicant underwent three days of detoxification, after which he received treatment for alcohol dependence. This treatment included twelve-step groups, anger management, relapse prevention, etc. Applicant was abstinent while taking part in the program. He returned to work after this treatment but relapsed after about nine months. He finally stopped drinking after his employer asked him to submit to a breathalyzer test, which he refused to do. He resumed attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). He attends meetings daily and is actively involved in his daughter’s life. He was estranged from his son for many years but has resumed contact with him. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant had not mitigated the Guideline F concerns, citing to what she termed “a pattern of persistent noncompliance with his [F]ederal and state income tax filing and payment obligations.” Decision at 10. She stated that he did not evidence responsible action in regard to his financial obligations, although she did enter a favorable finding concerning one consumer credit debt of under $400. Concerning Guideline G, the Judge noted Applicant’s disciplinary history in the military, as well as his subsequent DUI offenses. She stated that, after he completed his treatment program he had a favorable prognosis. However, she cited to his relapse into six months of alcohol consumption and to an absence of a current prognosis by a licensed professional as militating against a conclusion that Applicant had demonstrated rehabilitation. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge stated that Applicant’s relapse illustrates the extent of his alcohol dependency. She also stated that Applicant took no action prior to the hearing to file appropriate withholding documents and concluded that his circumstances evidenced complacency regarding his financial obligations.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to evidence that he made payments to the IRS and has filed tax withholding forms for the state. He argues that he is addressing his delinquent debs. Applicant notes evidence that he has obtained a sponsors and is working on the twelve steps associated with AA. He also argues that by the time of the hearing he had been sober for ten months. Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. However, that is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016). The Judge made detailed findings about Applicant’s financial problems as well as his difficulties with alcohol and discussed the evidence in her analysis. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06093 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 4, 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board