CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-03907.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-03907.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-03907.a1

Aug 2, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 60-year-old applicant with two post-graduate degrees was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from multiple delinquent debts totaling over $248,000, which included significant student loans and credit card balances.

The applicant failed to provide sufficient independent documentary evidence to demonstrate payments or resolution efforts for these debts. Despite claims of having resolved the financial issues, the judge found the submitted evidence inadequate.

Ultimately, there was insufficient proof that the applicant was making progress toward resolving the outstanding debts or that her overall financial situation was under control. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

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 issuedMay 27, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 12, 2018Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateAug 2, 2018

Cite For

Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution
Burden of Persuasion for Obtaining a Favorable Clearance Decision

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 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 and that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowGregg A. Cervi — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

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 that the Applicant failed to meet the burden of persuasion regarding the financial concerns raised.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealBurden of persuasion

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Charles C. Hale
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: . The fact a debt no longer appears on a credit report does not establish any meaningful, independent evidence as to the disposition of the debt. Debts may fall off credit reports for various reasons, including the passage of time. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-03907.a1 DATE: 08/02/2018 DATE: August 2, 2018 In Re: --------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-03907

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT James L. Stanton, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On May 27, 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 initially requested a hearing, but later asked for a decision on the written record. On April 12, 2018, after considering the record, 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 discussion, we affirm the Judge’s decision. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant, who is 60 years old, works for an international organization. She has earned two post-graduate degrees. The SOR alleges seven delinquent debts. These include two student loans totaling about $215,000, a home equity line of credit for about $9,200, two credit card accounts totaling over $24,000, and small debts to a utility company and the U.S. Government. In her Answer to the SOR, she provided a comprehensive explanation of the events leading to her debts, and the actions she has taken regarding them. Applicant made regular payments on her student loans until about 2010 when her rental property incurred significant water damage that resulted in an insurance dispute. At that time, she began working overseas and incurred significant expenses to make the rental property habitable. She claimed her credit card and student loan accounts were cut off by 2010. She could not get responses from creditors and attributed those communication problems to the housing market collapse. The Judge further stated: Applicant claims the utility company and U.S. Government debts were paid. She did not provide a current status of the credit-card debts and noted that she is working on methods to resolve the student-loan debts, although she could not explain why the total reported on her credit report was more than she believed she owed. She did not provide independent documentary evidence of debt payments, payment plan agreements, or other debt resolution efforts.1 While the water damage to Applicant’s rental property was a circumstance beyond her control, she has not shown sufficient documentary evidence of the debt resolution. Her debts arose years ago, and her efforts to address them were not timely. “There is insufficient record evidence showing progress toward resolution of her debts or that her financial situation is under control.” Decision at 5. Questions exist about Applicant’s judgment and overall financial responsibility. 1 Decision at 2.

DISCUSSION

In the appeal brief, Applicant argues that the student loans are not delinquent and that other debts have been paid or resolved. Her arguments are based on those loans and debts no longer being listed on credit reports in the File of Relevant Material (FORM), i.e., Items 7 and/or 8. We do not find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. The fact a debt no longer appears on a credit report does not establish any meaningful, independent evidence as to the disposition of the debt. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-03103 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 21, 2018). Debts may fall off credit reports for various reasons, including the passage of time. Id. Once the alleged debts were proven by record evidence (FORM Items 3-7), Applicant had the burden to present evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns arising from those debts and had the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable clearance decision. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. We find no reason to disturb the Judge’s determination that Applicant failed to meet that burden.

The balance of Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. Her arguments, however, are not 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. 17-00257 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2017). Applicant’s appeal brief fails to establish the Judge committed any harmful error. 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, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility 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: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board