CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05023.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-05023.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05023.a1

Nov 25, 2015· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A 43-year-old applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. The applicant admitted to sixteen of nineteen debts, totaling approximately $41,000.

Despite claims of mitigating circumstances related to a marital separation and divorce, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of addressing twelve of the nineteen debts. The applicant's explanations for the financial difficulties and efforts to resolve them were deemed insufficient to demonstrate fiscal responsibility.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, as the applicant failed to adequately mitigate the financial concerns raised under Guideline F.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's marital separation and divorce did not sufficiently mitigate the financial issues.

Key Rule Quoted

“The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel a Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 8, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 31, 2015Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateNov 25, 2015

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Fiscal Responsibility Despite Mitigating Circumstances
The Standard for Evaluating Mitigating Evidence in Security 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 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 did not adequately consider mitigating evidence. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — 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 decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant did not demonstrate that the Judge's conclusions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge adequately considered the evidence and articulated a rational connection between the facts and the decision made.

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 Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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: The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel a Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-05023.a1 DATE: 11/25/2015 DATE: November 25, 2015 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-05023

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 December 8, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On August 31, 2015, after the close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable decision. The Judge made the following findings of fact: Applicant is 43 years old. He admitted sixteen out of nineteen debts alleged in the SOR, totaling approximately $41,000. He became excessively indebted due to a marital separation in 2009 that led to a divorce two years later. In the divorce decree, Applicant was awarded many of the financial accounts. He states he contacted many of his creditors about his situation, but many of them would not work with him. He is now indebted to twelve creditors for approximately $19,000 in delinquent debt. Applicant blames the dissolution of his marriage and the resulting accumulation of many of the marital debts for his financial problems. Applicant has provided some documentary evidence to show that two judgments and five other delinquent debts have been paid off or are being resolved. In regard to twelve other debts, he has failed to submit any documentary evidence to show that he is addressing them. The Judge reached the following conclusions: Although his martial separation and divorce began Applicant’s financial problems, it is not clear from the record that, since his divorce, he has acted responsibly and reasonably under the circumstances. Given the extensive nature of his indebtedness, it will take some time before Applicant is even close to being debt free. With regard to twelve of his nineteen debts, there is no evidence of any efforts to repay these debts, be it prior to or after the receipt of the SOR. Without more, the Applicant has failed to establish that he is fiscally responsible. Applicant has not met his burden of proving that he is worthy of a security clearance. Applicant argues that the Judge did not take into account the large amount of debt that he has paid or resolved since his divorce. He asserts that, although he is not debt free, he has strived to correct all debts that became his responsibility as a result of his divorce. He emphasizes his military service record and his employment history and asserts that, under the whole-person concept, he should be considered a person of integrity. Applicant’s arguments do not establish error on the part of the Judge. Applicant’s appeal submission contains assertions and documents that were not part of the record below. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation. The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 2007). Applicant’s debt payment efforts and his favorable military and civilian employment record was evidence that the Judge was required to consider. However, such evidence does not mandate a favorable decision. Applicant’s arguments are not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). In this case, the Judge made sustainable findings that Applicant had a lengthy and serious history of not meeting financial obligations, and that he had not sufficiently demonstrated that he had acted responsibly with regard to his debts, despite the mitigating factor of his divorce. Central to the Judge’s analysis was her finding that, as to twelve of Applicant’s nineteen debts, there was no evidence in the record that he had even begun to address them. This finding, and the resulting conclusion that Applicant had not demonstrated reasonable behavior with regard to his debts, are supported by the record. The Judge adequately discussed why, given the state of the record, the disqualifying conduct established under Guideline F was not mitigated. The Board does not review a case de novo. The favorable evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007). After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for her decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). “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). Therefore, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.

ORDER

The Judge’s decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board