CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-05305.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-05305.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-05305.a1

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

Summary

A defense contractor's security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to extensive delinquent debts exceeding $110,000. The applicant admitted to these debts, which raised disqualifying conditions 19(a) and 19(c).

The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to demonstrate responsible financial management or a consistent track record of debt resolution. The judge found insufficient evidence of proactive efforts to address the financial issues.

Furthermore, the applicant's attempts to contact creditors were deemed insufficient and reactive, occurring primarily after his security clearance was already in jeopardy. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

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 issuedFeb 16, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 12, 2016
Decision dateDec 22, 2016

Cite For

Security Concerns Related to Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating a Track Record of Debt Resolution
Nexus Between Financial Issues and Eligibility for Security Clearance

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 a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that his financial circumstances did not raise security concerns and that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it consistent with the record and supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's conclusion regarding security concerns was arbitrary and capricious.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions regarding the applicant's financial issues and their implications for security clearance were reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The applicant's arguments did not demonstrate harmful error in the Judge's decision.

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
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 argues that his circumstances do not raise security concerns. The Directive presumes a nexus, or a rational connection, between admitted or proved circumstances under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s eligibility for a clearance. Applicant admitted most of the debts and the Judge found they were also established by the evidence. The Judge reasonably concluded that Applicant’s extensive delinquent debts raise a concern that he may lack qualities essential to protect classified information. Given the extent of Applicant’s debts, the paucity of evidence of actual debt resolution and the timing of his efforts to contact creditors, we conclude that the Judge’s adverse decision was consistent with the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-05305.a1 DATE: 12/22/2016 DATE: December 22, 2016 In Re: ----

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-05305

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 February 16, 2016, 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 hearing. On October 12, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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 concluding that Applicant’s circumstances raised security concerns 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 works for a Defense contractor and has held a clearance since 2009. He served in the Reserves from 1994 until 2008. Applicant has a bachelor’s degree and about $110,000 in student loans. His SOR lists several delinquent debts, for such things as a past-due mortgage, several credit cards, a student loan past due in the amount of over $960, an automobile loan, and medical expenses. He attributed these debts to “bad communication and lack of teamwork between him and his wife.” Decision at 2. Most of the debts are in Applicant’s name because his wife has a bad credit record. Applicant earns about $52,000 a year and his wife, a nurse, earns about $80,000. Applicant borrowed about $6,000 from his 401(k) plan to pay for his daughter’s tuition. His net monthly remainder is between $1,500 and $2,000. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s financial problems raised two disqualifying conditions: 19(a)1 and 19(c).2 The Judge stated that Applicant’s wife’s financial irresponsibility was a circumstance beyond his control but that Applicant had not shown responsible action, in that he entrusted her with credit cards and relied on her to make payments. The Judge noted that Applicant had contacted his creditors only after he realized that his clearance was in jeopardy. The Judge also stated that Applicant had not made payments on his debts, concluding that his presentation consisted more of promises for future action than evidence of a track record of debt resolution.

DISCUSSION

Applicant states that his financial problems do not evidence “a lack of self-control or a willingness not to abide by the rules.” Appeal Brief at 1. We construe this as an argument that his circumstances do not raise security concerns. The Directive presumes a nexus, or a rational connection, between admitted or proved circumstances under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s eligibility for a clearance. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01253 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2016). In this case, Applicant admitted all of the debts, save one, and the Judge found that the debts were also established by the evidence that Department Counsel presented. The Judge could reasonably draw a rational connection between Applicant’s extensive delinquent debts and a concern that he may be lacking in qualities essential to protecting classified information. Applicant argues that he had mitigated the concerns raised by his financial problems. However, given the extent of Applicant’s debts, the paucity of evidence of actual debt resolution, and the timing of his efforts to contact his creditors, we conclude that the Judge’s adverse conclusions were consistent with the record that was before him. See ISCR Case No. 14-04565 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 18, 2015) for the proposition that promises to pay delinquent debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of paying debts in a timely manner and otherwise acting in a financially responsible manner. The Judge examined the relevant evidence 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

FOOTNOTES

1 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 19(a): “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts[.]”

2 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 19(c): “a history of not meeting financial obligations[.]”