CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-06226.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-06226.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-06226.a1

Oct 15, 2015· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guidelines C (Foreign Preference) and F (Financial Considerations). The denial was primarily based on a delinquent home equity line of credit exceeding $12,400, which had been outstanding since 2012.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant's failure to provide corroborating evidence for his claims of financial hardship or efforts to modify the loan. A significant factor in the decision was the applicant's prioritization of his sons' educational expenses over his financial obligation to the lender.

Ultimately, the applicant did not demonstrate responsible action regarding his financial obligations, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

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 issuedJan 31, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 19, 2015
Decision dateOct 15, 2015

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Corroborating Evidence in Financial Hardship Claims
Prioritization of Financial Obligations as a Factor in Clearance Determinations

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 after being denied due to concerns under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding the Judge's analysis and conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJennifer I. Goldstein — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline CGuideline 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 and conclusions regarding the Applicant's financial situation were supportable and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The adverse decision was affirmed as it was consistent with national security interests.

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

Jean E. Smallin — 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 C; Guideline F DIGEST: The Directive does not permit the Board to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-06226.a1 DATE: 10/15/2015 DATE: October 15, 2015 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-06226

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 31, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On August 19, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein 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. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline C are not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issue raised on appeal: Applicant is delinquent on a home equity line of credit (LOC) in the amount of a little over $12,400. This debt has been delinquent since 2012. The LOC pertains to a rental property that Applicant owns and that is worth $750,000 and in which he has nearly $500,000 in equity. Applicant contends that he has requested a loan modification and that the lender will not accept any payments during the modification process. He did not corroborate his claim. Applicant attributes his financial problems to periods of unemployment and also to diminutions in pay when he was working. Despite these difficulties, Applicant and his wife fully finance their sons’ educational costs and living expenses. Applicant enjoys a good reputation for his work performance and his ability to follow procedural guidelines. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge found that Applicant’s delinquent LOC is an ongoing debt and that there is no reason to conclude that the circumstances underlying it have changed. Though noting Applicant’s unemployment, which was beyond his control, she concluded that he did not show responsible action in regard to the LOC. She cited to evidence that Applicant has prioritized his sons’ educational expenses over his obligation to the lender. She also noted that Applicant had presented no evidence of financial counseling or that he is working with the lender to resolve the LOC.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief contains matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant notes that his continued employment is contingent upon his having a clearance. However, the Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02041 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 17, 2015). Applicant cites to his having worked in the Defense industry for many years and his excellent security record. This was evidence that the Judge was required to consider, along with all the other evidence in the record. However, even those with good security histories may experience circumstances which draw their judgment into question. The Government does not have to wait until a person commits a security violation in order to make an adverse clearance decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-13626 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 2013). Applicant argues that he has demonstrated resolution of his LOC. However, the Judge’s findings and conclusions about this debt, including the lack of corroboration for Applicant’s claims, are supportable. In any event, even if a debt has been paid or settled, a Judge can still consider the underlying circumstances of the debt for what they may reveal about an applicant’s judgment and reliability. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02394 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 17, 2015). The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. Given record evidence of the age of the delinquent LOC, its ongoing status as of the close of the record, Applicant’s substantial net worth (and apparent ability to pay the debt), and his prioritizing of his sons’ educational expenses over the interests of the creditor, the decision is sustainable. “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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin 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