CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-06359.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-06359.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-06359.a1

Nov 6, 2015· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A pro se applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved delinquent debts totaling approximately $15,500. The applicant failed to demonstrate responsible financial behavior concerning these numerous debts.

Specifically, the applicant did not provide evidence of a plan to address the outstanding financial issues, nor was there any indication of financial counseling or good-faith efforts to resolve the difficulties. The judges emphasized the importance of national security in their determination, noting the applicant's failure to mitigate the disqualifying conditions raised under AG ¶ 19.

Ultimately, the applicant's inability to resolve the debts or present a credible plan for doing so led to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial 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 issuedFeb 3, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 21, 2015
Decision dateNov 6, 2015

Cite For

Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Responsible Financial Behavior for Security Clearance
Lack of Financial Counseling as a Factor in Clearance Denial

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 it supported by substantial evidence and not contrary to law.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — 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 evaluation was arbitrary or capricious. The applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all evidence in the record.

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
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: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-06359.a1 DATE: 11/06/2015 DATE: November 6, 2015 In Re: -------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-06359

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 February 3, 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 August 21, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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 never previously held a security clearance. Before undertaking his current job, he worked for the state government in a position that required him to commute 70 miles each way and sometimes work up to 16 hours a day. The pressures of this job led him to seek a different one. He was unemployed for about four months before beginning his current position. One of Applicant’s prior colleagues attested to his devotion to his family and employer. This person stated that Applicant could be trusted with sensitive information. Never married, Applicant has cohabited since 2008 with his fiancée. They have two children of their own, and his fiancée has two from a previous relationship. Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, totaling about $15,500. The debts include a payday loan, cable services, medical expenses, a repossessed vehicle, several judgments, etc. His problems were affected by his unemployment and by his mother having acquired telecommunication debts in his name without his knowledge. The Judge found that some of the debts were duplicates of others but that the vast majority were not resolved. The Judge found that Applicant did not corroborate his claims about having contacted creditors or paid debts. Applicant has depleted his retirement funds and has no money set aside for emergencies. Applicant’s fiancée also works full time, bringing in about $1,300 a month. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge resolved two debts in Applicant’s favor, insofar as they were duplicates of others. He entered adverse findings for the remainder. He stated that Applicant’s debts are numerous, ongoing, and were not incurred under unusual circumstances. Though noting that Applicant’s financial problems were affected by his unemployment and by his mother’s perfidy, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible behavior in regard to his delinquent debts, noting that he had not resolved even his smaller ones. The Judge stated that there was no evidence in the record of financial counseling, nor had Applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve his financial difficulties. The Judge concluded that Applicant “has no plan and has not taken any significant actions to resolve his debts.” Decision at 7. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to Applicant’s character evidence. He also found Applicant to have been candid and sincere in his presentation at the hearing. He stated, on the other hand, that Applicant is overwhelmed by his debts and lacks the financial and organization skill to get them under control.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to record evidence regarding the circumstances underlying his debts, his claims of debt payments, his good character, his good work record, etc. A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-08412 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 11, 2015). The Judge made detailed findings about Applicant’s financial situation and character evidence, discussing these findings in the Analysis. Given the extent of Applicant’s debts and the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had no plan for redress, his evaluation of Applicant’s circumstances is sustainable. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05251 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Oct. 5, 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 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