CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-03334.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-03334.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-03334.a1

Sep 20, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 29-year-old female federal contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant unresolved financial issues. The applicant had 18 outstanding debts totaling approximately $46,000.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence of financial stability or demonstrate responsible management of her financial obligations. The judge determined that without additional evidence of control over her debts, the applicant's financial problems were likely to recur.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, underscoring that the government is not required to wait for a security breach to deny a clearance. The decision highlighted the applicant's inability to resolve her numerous debts and establish a pattern of financial responsibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The government need not wait until an individual mishandles or fails to safeguard classified information before it can make an unfavorable security clearance decision.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 19, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 30, 2016
Decision dateSep 20, 2016

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Financial Responsibility for Security Clearance
Government's Authority to Deny Clearance Without a Security Breach Occurring

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 based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge did not consider her employment history and efforts to resolve her debts. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis and conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — 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 failed to consider her employment history and efforts to resolve her financial issues.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge considered all relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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. The Government need not wait until someone has failed to safeguard classified information before it can deny a clearance. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-03334.a1 DATE: 09/20/2016 DATE: September 20, 2016 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-03334

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 November 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 June 30, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 considered all of the record evidence and whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant, who is 29 years old, began working for a Federal contractor in August 2014. She is not married and has no children. She was unemployed from August 2008 to September 2008, but has since been employed. The SOR alleges 18 debts totaling about $46,000, including about $30,000 in student loans and an overpayment of about $1,600 in unemployment benefits. Insufficient evidence was presented to conclude the student loans were delinquent. For one of the other alleged debts, a creditor accepted a settlement offer that consisted of 12 installment payments, and Applicant wrote that she made a payment in March 2016. She claimed she paid three other debts, but only provided documentary proof of payment for two of them. For another debt, she provide a copy of a settlement offer she sent to the creditor, but provided no other evidence concerning that debt. For the remaining debts, she indicated that she was negotiating settlements, attempting to contact collection agencies to make payment arrangements, or disputing the debt with the creditors or credit reporting bureaus, but did not provide corroborating evidence of those actions. Applicant attributed her financial problems to a reduction in her working hours, moving out of her parents’ house and living on her own, and costly car repairs. She had moved back in with her parents, found a new job, and was taking care of her financial difficulties. She was in the process of setting up financial counseling, but did not provide evidence that she followed through with the counseling. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge found that Applicant had numerous debts that began accumulating in 2011 and remain unresolved. Applicant did not provide evidence of her current financial situation. There is insufficient evidence to conclude her financial problems are unlikely to recur or that she acted responsibly under the circumstances. She provided evidence that she paid a couple of small debts, was seeking to settle others, and was contacting creditors. Without additional evidence, there was not sufficient proof to conclude her financial problems were under control. In her whole-person analysis, the Judge noted that Applicant does not have a reliable financial track record and failed to meet her burden of persuasion.

DISCUSSION

In the appeal brief, Applicant asserted that she believes the Judge failed to consider that she has been performing the duties of her position for two years without any breach of sensitive information and the Judge failed to take into account the steps she had taken to resolve her financial problems even though her income was decreased due to maternity leave. However, the Judge made findings about her employment history and the efforts she took to address the delinquent debts. Applicant’s assertions are neither enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor are they sufficient 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. 14-01284 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2015). It also merits noting that the government need not wait until an individual mishandles or fails to safeguard classified information before it can make an unfavorable security clearance decision. Even those with good prior records can encounter circumstances in which their judgment and reliability might be compromised. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04648 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2015); Adams v. Laird, 420 F. 2d 230, 238-239 (D. C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 1039 (1970). 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board