CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-04225.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-04225.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04225.a1

Feb 17, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The judge found that the applicant had significant outstanding debts, including a $23,000 debt owed to the Department of Education, contributing to a total exceeding $23,000.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence of good-faith efforts to resolve these debts. Furthermore, the applicant's assertions of financial stability were not substantiated by the evidence presented.

Consequently, the judge concluded that the applicant's financial situation was unstable, leading to the denial of the security clearance. The disqualifying conditions raised were AG ¶ 19.

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 issuedDec 4, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 4, 2016
Decision dateFeb 17, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts
Importance of Financial Stability in Security Clearance Determinations

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 was from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's weighing of evidence was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMartin H. Mogul — 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 claimed that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge did not weigh the evidence in an arbitrary or capricious manner and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural compliance

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’s brief includes documents that post-date the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant reiterates some of the information that he had provided earlier, as in his Response to the SOR, in which he claims that he is resolving his large debt and denies owing the others. The Judge discussed information that Applicant submitted during the course of his clearance adjudication. Applicant’s has not shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-04225.a1 DATE: 02/17/2017 DATE: February 17, 2017 In Re: ---------.

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-04225

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 December 4, 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 November 4, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul 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 weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant’s SOR lists five delinquent debts. One, for over $23,000, is owed to the Department of Education. Applicant signed a rehabilitation agreement promising to make nine monthly payments of $212. Applicant provided a document showing three payments of $50. Applicant’s evidence does not support his contention that he has begun the process of resolving this debt. Other debts consist of a $13,000 collection account, two charged-off accounts of about $5,000 each, and a $116 medical debt. Applicant denied owing these debts, except for the medical one, which he did not address in his Response to the SOR. He sent dispute forms to the creditor holding the two charge-off accounts, although his credit reports establish that he owes them. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions were entitled to full application. He stated that Applicant had presented no evidence to show that he had initiated good-faith efforts to resolve his debts, nor had he shown that his financial situation is stable.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief includes documents that post-date the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant reiterates some of the information that he had provided earlier, as in his Response to the SOR, in which he claims that he is resolving his large debt and denies owing the others. The Judge discussed information that Applicant submitted during the course of his clearance adjudication. Applicant’s brief is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board