CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-00327.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-00327.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-00327.a1

Apr 15, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A federal contractor with a master's degree was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved delinquent debts exceeding $171,000. These debts primarily stemmed from medical expenses and tax liens. The appeal board affirmed the denial, citing the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns.

Specifically, the applicant did not submit a budget or an earnings statement, nor did she demonstrate responsible action regarding her financial obligations. The board emphasized the importance of financial responsibility in security clearance determinations, concluding that the applicant had not met the burden of proof to overcome the disqualifying conditions raised under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 20.

No mitigating conditions under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 21 were applied, leading to the final decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not show sufficient evidence of resolving her 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 issuedAug 25, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 2, 2016Decision on the written record.
Decision dateApr 15, 2016Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Importance of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns
Affirmation of Denial Based on Unresolved Debts

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 considerations under Guideline F. The applicant challenged the Judge's findings and argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the findings of fact or the conclusions drawn from them.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant challenges some of the Judge’s findings of fact.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge’s findings are based on substantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. Applicant cited no error that likely affected the outcome of the case.

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
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 challenges some of the Judge’s findings of fact. The Judge’s findings are based, in part, on Applicant’s Answer to the SOR and on the summary of her clearance interview. The Judge’s material findings are based upon substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. Applicant has cited to no error that likely affected the outcome of the case. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-00327.a1 DATE: 04/15/2016 DATE: April 15, 2016 In Re: --------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-00327

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 August 25, 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 February 2, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher 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’s findings of fact contained errors and 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 worked for a Federal contractor since February 2014. Divorced with one child from the marriage, she has never held a clearance. She has a master’s degree. Applicant’s SOR lists delinquent debts that total a little over $171,000. These debts are for medical expenses, tax liens, a collection account, and a judgment. The Judge found that these debts are not resolved, except for one that was paid through garnishment. Applicant’s problems resulted from a business that she and her ex-husband operated and that was owned by her ex-husband’s family. Applicant separated from her husband in 2008 and divorced him in 2013. She worked for the business until 2014, acquiring business-related debts during the course of the marriage. She provided no evidence of a budget or an earnings statement. She sought assistance from a tax attorney in 2009 and from a tax service and credit attorney in 2015. Applicant stated that some of the debts no longer appeared on credit reports. She stated that the tax liens were business-related, although she herself is responsible for about $16,600 of the more than $167,000 total obligation reflected by the three liens. In 2009, she hired a tax attorney to work with the IRS but submitted no evidence of any results. She provided a copy of a proposed installment agreement whereby she would pay $300 a month beginning in December 2015 but included no proof that the IRS had accepted the agreement. She also failed to corroborate her disputes of two medical debts. The Judge’s Analysis In concluding that Applicant had not mitigated the concerns arising from her debts, the Judge stated that most of them were not resolved. Though noting circumstances outside Applicant’s control that affected her financial condition, he concluded that she had not shown responsible action. He cited to his finding that Applicant had presented no evidence of favorable results from her having obtained an attorney in 2009 to address her tax problems and stated that there is no evidence that the IRS had accepted the payment plan that her tax service proposed in 2015. Noting that Applicant had resolved one debt through garnishment, he stated that evidence of additional success is lacking. The Judge credited Applicant with having received financial counseling by virtue of having hired the tax service and credit attorney in 2015.

DISCUSSION

Applicant challenges some of the Judge’s findings of fact, including the date of her divorce, the date upon which she stopped working for her husband’s family’s business, etc. The Judge’s findings are based, in part, on Applicant’s Answer to the SOR and on the summary of her clearance interview. The Judge’s material findings are based upon substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. Applicant has cited to no error that likely affected the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014). Applicant contends that she did not know that she needed to submit a budget or a copy of her divorce decree. The Directive does not specify the quantum of evidence that applicants should provide, although, in adjudications on the written record, it affords them with an opportunity to submit any and all documentary evidence they believe would assist in presenting their cases. Applicant was advised of her right to submit evidence, by means of the File of Relevant Material, the DOHA cover letter that accompanied it, and the copy of the Directive that DOHA sent her. See, e.g., DOHA Cover Letter, dated October 30, 2015. Applicant has attached to her brief documents that were not included in the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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