CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-01588.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-01588.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-01588.a1

Jun 17, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, represented by counsel, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple unresolved delinquent debts. These debts were incurred during periods of unemployment.

The judge determined there was insufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns. Specifically, the applicant failed to demonstrate participation in credit counseling or provide details on how savings were utilized for debt repayment. The judge concluded that the applicant exhibited poor judgment by incurring these debts and failing to resolve them over several years.

Ultimately, the denial was affirmed, with the judge emphasizing that the applicant's financial conduct raised concerns under Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19 and posed an unacceptable risk to national security interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedSep 1, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 31, 2016
Decision dateJun 17, 2016

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Poor Judgment in Financial Matters as a Disqualifying Factor
Emphasis on National Security Interests in 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 who was denied a security clearance due to several delinquent debts attributed to periods of unemployment. The applicant argued that the Judge erred in applying mitigating conditions and in the whole-person analysis. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis or application of the law.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowPhilip S. Howe — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge erred in his application of the mitigating conditions.
Whole-person analysis — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's whole-person analysis was erroneous.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge properly applied the relevant legal standards. The Board concluded that the Judge's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural compliance

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 has several delinquent debts. Applicant attributed her problems to several periods of unemployment. Her credit reports show that her debts were incurred over a number of years. She did not provide information about how much, if any, of her savings she utilized for debt payment. The Judge found that two of the nine SOR debts were either resolved or were being resolved. For the remainder, however, he found that they have not been paid. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-01588.a1 DATE: 06/17/2016 DATE: June 17, 2016 In Re: ----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-01588

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Shirin Shokrollahi, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On September 1, 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 March 31, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe 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 erred in his application of the mitigating conditions and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant has several delinquent debts, for credit cards, cable television services, etc. Applicant attributed her problems to several periods of unemployment. She also stated that she suffered an unspecified financial hardship. Her credit reports show that her debts were incurred over a number of years, including some when she was unemployed. Applicant traveled outside the U.S. in 2006 and again in 2007. She did not disclose how much she spent on these trips. She did not provide information about how much, if any, of her savings she utilized for debt payment. The Judge found that two of the nine SOR debts were either resolved or were being resolved. For the remainder, however, he found that they have not been paid. Applicant provided no evidence that she had received credit counseling. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant had not provided enough evidence to mitigate the concerns raised by her financial problems. He stated that, over time, Applicant had incurred debts that she had no reasonable hope of paying, and she went on vacations and spent money that could have been used for debts resolution. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge reiterated that Applicant had failed to resolve all but two of her debts, leaving her vulnerable to pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress based on the extent of her financial problems. He stated that she showed poor judgment by incurring the debts and then by failing to pay them over a course of several years.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief cites to matters that are not included in the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant cites to record evidence that she believes supports her case for a clearance. However, her 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). We conclude that the Judge’s whole person analysis complies with the requirements of Directive ¶ 6.3, in that the Judge considered the totality of the evidence in reaching his decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00424 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 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. 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