CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05764.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-05764.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05764.a1

Feb 24, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A U.S. defense contractor and former military member was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unresolved delinquent debts and a history of financial irresponsibility. The applicant had several outstanding debts that were not sufficiently addressed, leading to the application of disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c).

While the applicant claimed efforts to resolve these debts, the judge found these actions insufficient to overcome the concerns. The judge noted a pattern of inaction regarding the debts prior to 2014. Although mitigating condition AG ¶ 20(d) was considered, it did not outweigh the persistent financial concerns.

Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient resolution of the delinquent debts. The appeal board affirmed this denial, underscoring the critical role of financial responsibility in national security assessments.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedInitiated a Good-faith Effort to Resolve DebtsThe judge concluded that the applicant's delayed response to addressing his debts precluded favorable application.

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 issuedJan 27, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 2, 2015
Decision dateFeb 24, 2016

Cite For

Importance of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution as a Basis for Denial
Rebuttal of Presumption Regarding Evidence Considered by the Judge

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 no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMartin H. Mogul — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

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 decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant did not demonstrate that the Judge's findings were arbitrary or capricious. The applicant's arguments did not rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all 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 DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-05764.a1 DATE: 02/24/2016 DATE: February 24, 2016 In Re: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-05764

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 January 27, 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 hearing. On December 2, 2015, after the hearing, 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 served in the U.S. military from 2002 until 2012. He has been employed by a Defense contractor since 2014. His SOR lists seven delinquent debts, that had either been charged off or were in collection status. The Judge found that one of the debts, a credit card, has been resolved. However, he found that there was insufficient evidence to show that the remainder had been paid or reduced. Applicant hired a law firm in 2014 to assist him resolving his debts. He has paid them a total of over $1,000 but, in the week before the hearing, concluded that they were not delivering on their promise of debt resolution. He plans to stop using the firm. However, for several years prior to hiring the firm, applicant made no payments on his overdue debts. Applicant currently makes about $65,000 a year. He has over $5,000 in savings and has a monthly surplus of about $800. About two weeks prior to the hearing, Applicant took a number of on-line financial classes. A witness testified that he had known Applicant for many years and believed him to be hardworking, trustworthy, and ethical. He submitted a number of documents, both during the hearing and afterward, showing, among other things, his financial education classes, his military discharge, several letters of recommendation, including one from a Brigadier General, and an agreement with a new law firm. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge noted evidence that Applicant’s financial problems were affected by a period of unemployment and by education loans that were not deferred during Applicant’s military deployment, but that he had not acted responsibly in regard to his debts.1 He stated that Applicant took no steps to resolve his debts until 2014, hiring the law firm after he began applying for a clearance. He concluded that Applicant’s dilatory response to addressing his debts precluded favorable application of Mitigating Condition 20(d): “initiated a good-faith effort to resolve his debts.”2

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to evidence of his efforts to resolve his debts, such as hiring the law firm and other steps. 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). Neither has he shown that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. He cites to Disqualifying Condition (DC) 19(b): “indebtedness caused by frivolous or irresponsible spending[.]”3 He argues that he has not been irresponsible in his spending and that he was not trying to establish a lifestyle that was beyond his means. The Judge did not apply DC 19(b), however. Rather, he found that DC 19(a)4 and 19(c)5 were raised by Applicant’s circumstances, which was reasonable, based on the record that was before him. 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

FOOTNOTES

1 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(b): “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances[.]”

2 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(d).

3 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 19(b).

4 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 19(a): “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts[.]”

5 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 19(c): “a history of not meeting financial obligations[.]”