CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-06634.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-06634.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-06634.a1

Apr 28, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A military retiree with 23 years of service was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from unresolved delinquent debts exceeding $25,000, which the judge determined were voluntarily incurred.

The applicant failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence to support claims of debt repayment. Consequently, the judge concluded that the debts remained unresolved and that the applicant had not demonstrated responsible action regarding their financial obligations.

Specifically, Disqualifying Condition F.3 was raised, leading to the ultimate decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

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 issuedMay 12, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 23, 2016
Decision dateApr 28, 2016

Cite For

Insufficient Corroboration of Debt Repayment Claims Under Guideline F
Voluntary Nature of Debts as a Disqualifying Factor
Standard for Granting Security Clearance Related to National Security Interests

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 a challenge to an adverse decision denying the Applicant 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 Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the weighing of evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJennifer I. Goldstein — 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 findings were sustainable and that the Applicant did not provide sufficient corroboration for his claims regarding debt repayment. The appeal did not demonstrate that the Judge's decision was arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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’s brief challenges the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, but given her sustainable findings about a lack of corroboration of Applicant’s debt payment claims, Applicant’s argument is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-06634.a1 DATE: 04/28/2016 DATE: April 28, 2016 In Re: --------------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-06634

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 May 12, 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 February 23, 2016, 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. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant served 23 years in the military, retiring in 2008. He is married and has one child. His SOR lists several delinquent debts: a mortgage account that is past-due in the amount of a little over $10,000; a collection account for nearly $15,000 that Applicant contends resulted from an automobile repossession;1 and other debts, such as cell phone services, a video game subscription, pest control services, etc. Applicant testified that he is renegotiating the mortgage loan. For the other debts, he claimed either to have resolved them or not to recognize them. Applicant produced no documentation to substantiate debt payments or disputes. Applicant attributes his financial problems to the costs of a necessary home repair and to reduced income after he retired from the military. He received four weeks of financial counseling through his church. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge noted circumstances outside Applicant’s control that affected his financial condition: his home repairs and diminution in pay. However, she concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to his debts. She reiterated her findings that Applicant had not corroborated many of his claims regarding debt repayment. The Judge cited to Applicant’s military service, which was evidence favorable to him. She went on to state, however, that Applicant’s debts were incurred voluntarily yet he lacks the resources to resolve them. She stated that the record does not disclose clear indications that Applicant’s problems are behind him.

DISCUSSION

Much of Applicant’s appeal brief asserts matters from outside the record, including documents that post-date the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant cites to his efforts at addressing his debts, arguing that he has resolved all of the allegations in the SOR. However, Applicant has not undermined the Judge’s findings about a paucity of corroborating evidence for his claims. She gave Applicant thirty days after the close of the hearing to provide such evidence, and she extended the deadline another two weeks at Applicant’s request. However, he did not submit anything. Decision at 2. Applicant’s brief challenges the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, but, given her sustainable findings about a lack of corroboration, Applicant’s argument is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the

FOOTNOTES

1 Three credit reports, included in the record as Government Exhibits 2 - 4, describe this debt as a charge account. evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14- 06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016). 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. Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board