CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-05856.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-05856.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-05856.a1

Jan 25, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant, representing herself, had approximately $37,000 in delinquent debts and a dismissed bankruptcy. The judge noted that the applicant had been steadily employed since 2004 but failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve her outstanding debts.

Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 were raised, while mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(c) were applied. However, these were insufficient to overcome the concerns regarding her financial stability and commitment to resolving her debts.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to address the $37,000 in delinquent debts, the dismissed bankruptcy, and the lack of demonstrated good-faith effort to resolve her financial obligations despite consistent employment. The judge ultimately concluded that the applicant did not meet the standards for a security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe judge noted that the applicant's debts had remained unresolved for years.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Applicant Has Received CounselingThe applicant sought financial counseling after the hearing.

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 3, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 8, 2016
Decision dateJan 25, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Demonstration of Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts
Impact of Personal Circumstances on Financial Responsibility Assessments

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 after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the weighing of evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGregg A. Cervi — 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 adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, affirming that the applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve her debts.

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’s argument amounts to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 12-05856.a1 DATE: 01/25/2016 DATE: January 25, 2017 In Re: ---------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-05856

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 September 3, 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 hearing. On December 8, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: 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’s SOR alleged delinquent debt of about $37,000, which date back to 2008. It also alleged a Chapter 13 bankruptcy that was dismissed, gambling, and improper use of a company credit card. The debts were for such things as a student loan, medical expenses, telephone services, a judgment for unpaid rent, utility services, and checks returned for insufficient funds. Except for the relatively small one for utilities, none of Applicant’s delinquent debts had been resolved as of the close of the record. Applicant has suffered periods of abuse and spent time and money trying to get custody of her children. She has been treated for depression, which included treatment for gambling. Applicant gambled about twice a month as a respite from her abusive spouse. She used her company credit card for car repairs and paid the bill. Applicant lives paycheck to paycheck. She has about $700 in her checking account after expenses and about $5 in savings. She is paying back a loan from her 401(k). After the hearing she set up a meeting with a financial counselor. Applicant enjoys a good reputation for trustworthiness, dedication, and sincerity. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s gambling was not a compulsive habit and, therefore, did not raise security concerns in and of itself. However, he stated that her gambling was an appropriate matter to be addressed in the whole-person analysis. He also concluded that her aborted bankruptcy filing did not raise concerns. Regarding Applicant’s debts, he concluded that she had shown mitigation only regarding the utility bill. For the remainder, he stated that she had permitted them to remain unresolved for years, despite having been steadily employed since 2004. He concluded that she had not demonstrated a good-faith effort to pay her debts and that she had not provided a reason to believe that her problems will not recur. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to Applicant’s difficult marriage and the abuse that she suffered therein. However, he stated that this did not explain her many years of delinquent debts. He also noted that she continues to gamble, despite her financial difficulties. The Judge stated that Applicant’s misuse of a company credit card indicated that she was not in control of her finances.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to evidence that she believes supports her effort for a security clearance. This includes her consistent employment, her lack of security infractions despite a history of financial problems, and her difficult personal problems. Applicant argues that she is aggressively tackling her delinquent debts, “utilizing logical solutions suggested by the [Judge].”1 Applicant’s argument amounts to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not enough 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. 14-06686 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 27, 2016). Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-02854 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2016). 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 Toward the end of the hearing, the Judge asked Applicant if she had considered using a non-profit credit counselor, possibly through her employer. Tr. at 77. As stated in the findings summary above, Applicant enlisted the services of a counselor after the hearing.