CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-01285.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-01285.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-01285.a1

Dec 22, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A pro se applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent debts, including over $62,000 in child support arrears and tax liens. The appeal board affirmed this denial, citing the applicant's financial irresponsibility and failure to demonstrate the good judgment and reliability required for access to classified information.

Disqualifying conditions related to delinquent debts and an inability to meet financial obligations were raised. While mitigating conditions concerning the applicant's efforts to resolve the debt and the circumstances surrounding the debt were considered, they were ultimately not sufficient to overcome the security concerns.

The denial was based on the applicant's substantial delinquent debts and a lack of evidence demonstrating responsible financial management or good-faith efforts to resolve these obligations. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial irresponsibility raised significant concerns regarding their reliability and judgment, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 20(c)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to pay his debts.
AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's financial problems were ongoing and not resolved.

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as paying child support; filing and paying taxes; and discharging debts when due, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information.”
— ISCR Case No. 14-01894 at 5 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 19, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateDec 22, 2016

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Good Judgment and Reliability for Security Clearance
Consideration of Ongoing Financial Obligations in Security Clearance Decisions

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 challenged the Judge's findings and the adverse decision. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding the material findings supported by substantial evidence and no harmful error that would change the outcome.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowErin C. Hogan — 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 argued that the Judge's findings of fact contained errors and that the adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's material findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant did not demonstrate harmful error likely to change the outcome of the case. The Judge's analysis and conclusions regarding the applicant's financial issues were deemed reasonable and consistent with the evidence presented.

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: We examine a Judge’s findings of fact to see if they are supported by substantial evidence. In this case, the Judge’s material findings are sustainable. Applicant did not rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-01285.a1 DATE: 12/22/2016 DATE: December 22, 2016 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-01285

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 October 19, 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 7, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Chief Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan 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 is sponsored by a DoD contractor who will hire him if he receives a clearance. His SOR lists several delinquent debts, and Applicant admitted the allegations. Divorced, Applicant has two children, ages 18 and 20. Applicant’s SOR alleges a $62,000 debt for past-due child support payments. Applicant contends that he had been making payments to his spouse since their separation. However, the court in the subsequent divorce action did not accept Applicant’s contention and, as part of the decree, ordered him to make two year’s worth of retroactive payments. Applicant’s other debts include Federal tax liens for 2012 and 2014 and a state tax lien for 2011. Applicant admitted that he had not filed his tax returns, although this was not alleged in the SOR. The Judge stated that it was not clear whether Applicant’s tax returns had actually been filed and whether the IRS had assessed any penalties. Applicant also owes over $11,000 resulting from a vehicle repossession, a $10,000 judgment on behalf of a bank, and a debt of under $500, also to a bank. The Judge found that Applicant had not provided information about the status of his delinquent debts. Applicant has been unemployed since 2011. He has supported himself with unemployment compensation and with income from odd jobs. He also owns a company, though it is not clear how much income he receives from this. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge noted that Applicant has had financial problems for many years, including delinquent child support and failure to pay taxes. She stated that someone who is irresponsible with his debts may well be equally so with classified information. In evaluating Applicant’s case for mitigation, the Judge concluded that his debts are recent and ongoing. Although Applicant’s problems were affected by a divorce, which was a circumstance outside his control, she stated that he had not evidenced responsible action. The Judge also stated that she was considering the non- alleged conduct–failure to file tax returns–for its bearing upon mitigation. She stated that Applicant had not demonstrated a good-faith effort to pay his debts, nor had he provided proof that he had actually filed or paid his debt to the IRS. Although he provided a child support payment history up through 2014, there is nothing in the record to show payments after that.

DISCUSSION

Applicant challenges some of the Judge’s findings of fact, for example, that he had admitted all of the debts in the SOR, the age of his children, his employment status, and that he was in arrears on child support. We examine a Judge’s findings to see if they are supported by “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. See ISCR Case No. 14-04226 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015). Applicant is correct that he did not admit all of the allegations. In fact, he denied two SOR debts.1 Therefore, to the extent that the Judge found that he had admitted all of the SOR allegations, she erred. The Judge also may have misstated the ages of at least one of Applicant’s two children, based upon the information provided in his security clearance application (SCA). Item 3, SCA, at 23-24. These two things are of minimal significance. On the other hand, the Judge’s findings about Applicant’s employment are supportable. In his clearance interview he stated that he had yet to start employment with the company that is sponsoring him for a clearance and that he had been unemployed since 2011. Item 4, Clearance Interview Summary, at 4. We also find no reason to disturb the Judge’s findings about child support. Her findings addressed Applicant’s contention that he had actually made payments to his estranged wife before the date of his divorce. However, the record supports the Judge’s observation that there is nothing in the record to show payments after 2014. Child Support Payment Summary Report, dated April 2014, included in Item 2, Response to SOR. Indeed, in Applicant’s 2014 clearance interview, he agreed that, at that time, he owed nearly $53,000 in back child support and only made payments of $200 to $400 “when he can.” Item 4 at 6. Moreover, Item 8, Credit Report dated September 2015, shows a remaining balance of over $62,000 in past-due child support obligations, suggesting that his debt had grown since the time of his interview. The Judge’s findings about Applicant’s child support debt, including that he did not provide clear information about its current status, are consistent with the record that was before her. After considering Applicant’s appeal argument as a whole, we conclude that the Judge’s material findings are based on substantial evidence, or constitute reasonable characterizations or inferences that could be drawn from the record. Applicant has not identified any harmful error likely to change the outcome of the case. Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Judge’s material findings of security concern are sustainable. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014). The balance of Applicant’s appeal consist of challenges to the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, in an effort to show that he had established mitigation. In doing so, Applicant cites to the evidence that he had submitted, arguing that it shows that he is resolving his financial problems. Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record or 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. 14-05795 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016). The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as paying child support; filing and paying and taxes; and discharging debts when due, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01894 at 5 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015). See Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union Local 473 v. McElroy, 284 F.2d 173, 183 (D.C. Cir. 1960), aff’d, 367 U.S. 886 (1961) (Security requirements include, inter alia, “a high sense of one’s obligations[.]”). 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

FOOTNOTES

1 The Judge resolved these two debts in Applicant’s favor.