CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-00633.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-00633.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-00633.a1

Aug 8, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, represented by counsel, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved delinquent debts exceeding $27,700. The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19, which addresses financial irresponsibility.

While the applicant resolved two smaller debts, they failed to demonstrate responsible action regarding the largest outstanding debt. Specifically, the applicant did not corroborate claims of attempting to settle this ongoing debt, and their arguments did not sufficiently challenge the judge's findings on this matter.

Although Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(c) were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the security concerns. The applicant's inability to resolve the significant debt and provide verifiable efforts toward its resolution ultimately led to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's ongoing debt was not mitigated by her claims of financial counseling.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedThe Individual Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant's financial counseling did not demonstrate responsible action regarding 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 7, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 25, 2016
Decision dateAug 8, 2016

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Failure to Demonstrate Responsible Action Regarding Debts
Consideration of the Whole-person Analysis in Financial Cases

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 failed to consider all evidence and that the decision was arbitrary. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — 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 contended that the Judge failed to consider all of the evidence in the record.
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 considered all evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision was sustainable on the record, and the applicant did not demonstrate that the Judge's conclusions were 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
James E. Moody
William S. Fields

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 failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence. Hearing Office cases are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-00633.a1 DATE: 08/08/2016 DATE: August 8, 2016 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-00633

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Ryan C. Nerney, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On August 7, 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 May 25, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola 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 failed to consider all of the evidence in the record; whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous; and whether the Judge’s adverse decision as arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant’s SOR alleged three delinquent debts: one for $149, one for a little over $3,800, and one for over $27,700. The Judge found that Applicant had resolved the first two. However, he found that the third one was still ongoing and that she did not corroborate her claims that she had been trying to settle it. Applicant attributed her poor financial condition to her husband’s underemployment and to family medical expenses. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant failed to mitigate concerns arising from the large, ongoing debt. He noted circumstances outside her control that affected Applicant’s financial condition but concluded that she had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to this debt. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to Applicant’s good work references. However, he stated that any effort at resolving this debt was not supported by anything beyond her own “averments.” Decision at 4.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends that the Judge failed to consider all of the evidence in the record, citing to her letters of recommendation, her having obtained financial counseling, etc. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016). She also argues that the Judge did not properly weigh evidence that was favorable to her, for example her having resolved two of the SOR debts. However, Applicant is, in effect, arguing for an alternative interpretation of the record, which is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Id. at 3. Applicant cites to a Hearing Office case that she contends supports her effort to get a clearance. We have given this case due consideration as persuasive authority. However, Hearing Office decisions are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03747 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 13, 2015). Each case must be decided on its own merits. 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board