CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-04926.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-04926.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-04926.a1

Dec 20, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied access to classified information under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from significant financial delinquencies, including over $30,000 in tax debts and more than $3,000 in child support arrears.

The applicant failed to demonstrate responsible action regarding these debts. Specifically, he did not provide sufficient evidence to show he was actively addressing his financial obligations.

The judges concluded that the applicant's financial conduct did not meet the reliability standards necessary for a security clearance, leading to the denial of his application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill legal obligations, such as paying taxes, providing child support, and addressing other debts in a reasonable manner, does not demonstrate the high degree of reliability required of those granted access to classified information.”
— ISCR Case No. 14-01894

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 20, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 22, 2016
Decision dateDec 20, 2016

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Delinquencies Under Guideline F
Burden of Persuasion on the Applicant in DOHA Proceedings
Failure to Demonstrate Responsible Action Regarding Financial Obligations

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 considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the applicant did not meet the burden of persuasion regarding his 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 conclusion that the Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion was supportable based on the total record, including the Applicant's failure to fulfill legal obligations.

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
James F. Duffy

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 cites to documentary evidence, arguing that he has demonstrated mitigation. In DOHA proceedings, applicants bear the burden of persuasion. Although Applicant presented some evidence, the Judge’s overall conclusion that he had not met his burden of persuasion is supportable based on the total record. A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill legal obligations, such as paying taxes, providing child support, and addressing other debts in a reasonable manner, does not demonstrate the high degree of reliability required of those granted access to classified information. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-04926.a1 DATE: 12/20/2016 DATE: December 20, 2016 In Re: ------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-04926

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 April 20, 2015, 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 September 22, 2016, 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 E3.1.30.1 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 his current employer since 2012. He experienced about eight months of unemployment prior to that. His SOR alleges Federal income tax delinquencies of over $30,000. He made payment arrangements with the IRS in 2012 but failed to follow through. The next year, the IRS garnished his wages. It is not clear from the record how much of his tax debt he has paid, although Applicant’s installment agreement shows that he still owes nearly $12,000. In addition, Applicant’s SOR lists several judgments against him, as well as debts for medical services and utilities. Applicant is in arrears for child support payments for over $3,000. Although his wages have been garnished, Applicant did not provide documents to show how much he has paid in child support. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge cited to a paucity of record evidence concerning the circumstances underlying Applicant’s financial problems and his efforts to resolve them. Though noting events outside of Applicant’s control that affected his finances, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to his debts.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to his documentary evidence, arguing that he has demonstrated mitigation. In a DOHA proceeding, the applicant bears the burden of persuasion that he or she should have a security clearance. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. Although Applicant presented some evidence in his Answer to the SOR and Response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM), the Judge’s overall conclusion that he had not met his burden of persuasion is supportable based on this record. A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill legal obligations, such as paying taxes, providing child support, and addressing other debts in a reasonable manner, does not demonstrate the high degree of reliability required of those granted access to classified information. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14- 01894 at 5 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015). Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, including the documents that he submitted in his Response to the FORM. Neither has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2, 3 (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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 We received Applicant’s brief on November 7, 2016. He submitted a second brief on November 28, 2016. The Directive authorizes only one brief from each party. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-09245 at 2, note 1 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2014). Therefore, we cannot consider the second brief.