CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05074.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-05074.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05074.a1

Feb 5, 2016· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A federal contractor, employed since 2002, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from unresolved delinquent debts totaling $109,000.

Key among these debts was a mortgage account over $84,000 past due. The applicant failed to provide any evidence of payments made, established payment plans, or valid reasons to dispute the debts' accuracy.

Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant did not demonstrate financial responsibility and lacked sufficient mitigating evidence to overcome the security concerns raised by the outstanding financial obligations. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedMar 28, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldDec 7, 2015
Decision dateFeb 5, 2016

Cite For

Lack of Mitigating Evidence in Financial Considerations Cases
Importance of Financial Responsibility in Security Clearance Determinations
Burden of Persuasion Regarding Debts and Financial Status

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 was brought by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error and that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — 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 based on substantial evidence and that the applicant did not identify any harmful error likely to change the outcome of the case. The Judge's conclusion regarding the lack of mitigating evidence was consistent with the record.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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 Judge’s finding that there was apaucity of mitigating evidence is consistemnt with the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-05074.a1 DATE: 02/05/2016 DATE: February 5, 2015 In Re: -------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-05074

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 March 28, 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 December 7, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher 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 Federal contractor since 2002. His SOR lists seven delinquent debts, that total $109,000. The largest of these is a mortgage account. The debts are supported by Applicant’s admissions and by his credit reports. The mortgage debt is past-due in the amount of over $84,000. Applicant asserts that his ex- wife was to make the payments. He has since moved back into the house and is seeking a loan modification. He has provided no documentary evidence of a modification agreement, payment, or a payment plan. Applicant has denied several of the debts, although they remain on his credit reports. He provided no evidence of payment, payment plans, or reasons to dispute the validity of the debts. He provided no information about his current financial status, budget, or if he has received counseling. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge stated that Applicant’s debts are recent and unresolved. Applicant provided no evidence that would establish mitigation, such as that the debts arose from circumstances outside his control, that any of them had been paid, that he had received counseling, or that he had a basis to dispute them.

DISCUSSION

Applicant asserts that some of the Judge’s findings are in error. He states that his mortgage account has been transferred to another institution and that he has resolved a debt owed to a credit union, matters that he referenced, although briefly, in his reply to the SOR. He also states that he has a modification agreement. Applicant has attached to his brief documents that are not included in the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. We have examined the Judge’s findings in light of the record as a whole. We conclude that they are based on substantial record evidence. Applicant has not identified any harmful error likely to change the outcome of the case. Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Judge’s material findings of security concern are sustainable. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014).

The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The Judge’s finding that there was a paucity of evidence in mitigation was consistent with the record before him. This lack of evidence supported his conclusion that Applicant had failed to meet his burden of persuasion as to mitigation. See ISCR Case No. 14-03612 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 25, 2015) (A paucity of evidence showing how debts were incurred and what steps the applicant took to resolve them supported the Judge’s adverse 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board