CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-06895.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-06895.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-06895.a1

Jan 11, 2016· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. These issues included a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and delinquent debts exceeding $35,000, which raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 19.

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate these financial concerns. Consequently, the appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant did not adequately address the financial risks presented.

The board explicitly stated that the potential impact of this decision on the applicant's employment could not be considered in their determination. The denial was based solely on the unmitigated financial considerations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision on an applicant.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 30, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldOct 20, 2015Decision made by Administrative Judge Mark Harvey.
Decision dateJan 11, 2016Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns
Impact of Unfavorable Decision on Employment Not Considered

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 denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Administrative Judge's weighing of the evidence was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Administrative Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance. The appeal did not demonstrate that the Judge's weighing of the evidence 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 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: The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision on an applicant. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-06895.a1 DATE: 01/11/2016 DATE: January 11, 2016 In Re: ------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-06895

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 30, 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 decision on the written record. On October 20, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Mark Harvey 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 weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge concluded that Applicant did not provide enough evidence to mitigate security concerns arising from a Chapter 7 bankruptcy action and delinquent debts totaling over $35,000. We construe Applicant’s appeal as a challenge to the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. However, his argument is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-0202 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015). Applicant’s brief includes new evidence, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant states because he has lost his clearance he is unemployed. The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact that an unfavorable decision might have upon an applicant. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03112 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 3, 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