CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-06203.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-06203.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-06203.a1

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

Summary

An applicant, represented by counsel, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The appeal board upheld the denial, citing the applicant's failure to corroborate claims of debt resolution and a lack of evidence demonstrating responsible financial management.

Specifically, the applicant did not provide corroborating evidence for attempts to resolve significant delinquent debts. The judge found conflicting evidence regarding the applicant's willingness and ability to pay these obligations.

Ultimately, the applicant failed to demonstrate responsible action concerning his financial obligations, leading to the denial of the security clearance. The decision underscored the importance of showing progress in addressing financial responsibilities to align with national security interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

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 27, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 12, 2016
Decision dateApr 6, 2016

Cite For

Failure to Corroborate Claims of Debt Resolution Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Financial Responsibility for Security Clearance
Nexus Between Financial Conduct and Security Eligibility

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 who was denied a security clearance due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge erred in her conclusions regarding his financial condition and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in her analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowElizabeth M. Matchinski — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge erred in concluding that his financial condition raised security concerns.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended 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 supported by substantial evidence and that her conclusions were not arbitrary or capricious. The Judge properly considered the totality of the evidence in her whole-person analysis.

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
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 cites to his testimony that he had attempted to resolve the largest medical debt. He also cites to testimony and other evidence concerning debt repayment and his payment of current expenses. The Judge made findings about Applicant’s evidence. However, her finding that he had not corroborated his testimony was consistent with the record that was before her. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-06203.a1 DATE: 04/06/2016 DATE: April 6, 2016 In Re: ---------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-06203

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Andrew J. McCoy, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On March 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 January 12, 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 issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in concluding that his financial condition raised security concerns and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant has worked for his current employer since August 2014. He worked for this company previously from 1979 to 2004 and while doing so held a clearance. Applicant has an ex- wife, whom he divorced in 2002. He had children with her, and one of them lived with him for a couple of years. Applicant received no child support from his ex-wife. He experienced unemployment from August 2012 until May 2013. His finances were affected by a 2008 court order that he cover his youngest child with medical insurance, as well as by a diminution in income due to a loss of overtime and to his second wife’s unemployment. They were also affected by home repairs resulting from a burst water pipe. Applicant’s SOR lists several delinquent debts, for credit cards, medical expenses, etc. The medical bills included one for nearly $14,000, incurred at a time when he did not have health insurance. He offered to make monthly payments, but the creditor did not accept it. He contends that the initial balance of this debt was about $3,000 but provided no corroboration. When asked why he had not taken action regarding his older debts, Applicant replied that he did not know why the Government was “sweating me on this many details.” Decision at 5. He stated that he had paid some of the SOR debts but that he did not know if he could corroborate this claim. Applicant stated that he pays his current expenses. When asked why he had been inattentive to his delinquent debts, he replied that he had experienced bad luck. He admitted that he did not have a good grasp on the family finances and that his claim of $300 in discretionary income was a guess. He currently has health insurance and has no open credit card accounts. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s financial condition raised two disqualifying conditions: 19(a)1 and (c).2 In evaluating Applicant’s case for mitigation, the Judge concluded that he had not shown responsible action in regard to his debts. Concerning the largest medical debt, she noted that Applicant had not corroborated his testimony disputing the amount. She also found the evidence about his willingness to pay other debts, or about his ability to do so, to be conflicting. She stated that he had ignored his financial problems even after having been placed on notice that they were of concern to the DoD. She found that his SOR debts were not resolved and that he had provided no evidence of financial counseling. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to evidence of various misfortunes that affected Applicant’s financial condition. She stated that without evidence that Applicant has shown progress in addressing his debts, it is premature to grant him eligibility for access to classified information.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to evidence about debt payment and resolution. He argues that he is willing to pay debts and does not have a history of failing to do so. The Directive presumes that there is a nexus between proven or admitted conduct or circumstances under the Guidelines and an applicant’s security eligibility. See. e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04648 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2015). In this case Applicant’s response to the SOR admitted three of the SOR debts, including the largest medical debt. In addition, the evidence establishes the factual basis for all of the allegations. Applicant’s argument is not enough to rebut the presumption of nexus. Applicant cites to his testimony that he had attempted to resolve the largest medical debt. He also cites to testimony and other evidence concerning debt repayment and his payment of current expenses. The Judge made findings about Applicant’s evidence. However, her finding that he had not corroborated his testimony was consistent with the record that was before her. 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). Moreover, the Judge’s whole person analysis complies with the requirements of Directive ¶ 6.3, in that she considered the totality of the evidence in reaching her decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02806 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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 ¶ 19(a): “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts[.]”

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