CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-04158.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-04158.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04158.a1

Mar 15, 2018· Hon. James E. Moody· appeal

Summary

An 87-year-old former government employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed primarily from numerous delinquent debts, including a Federal tax lien and a court judgment.

The applicant failed to demonstrate responsible action to resolve these debts. Claims that certain debts were not his responsibility were unsubstantiated, and his payment history was insufficient to show compliance with financial obligations.

While mitigating conditions AG ¶ 21(a) and AG ¶ 21(c) were considered, the judge found insufficient evidence of responsible action. Consequently, the security clearance was denied, consistent with national security interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's debts were numerous and not unlikely to recur.
AG ¶ 21(c)rejectedThe Individual Has Received CounselingThe applicant did not show evidence of responsible action taken regarding 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 issuedJan 16, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 27, 2017
Decision dateMar 15, 2018

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Responsible Action Regarding Debts Under Guideline F
Failure to Substantiate Claims of Debt Responsibility Under Guideline F
The Standard for Granting Security Clearance Consistent with National Security Interests.

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 and personal conduct. The applicant contended that the Judge failed to consider all evidence, leading to an arbitrary decision. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGina L. Marine — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider all evidence, resulting in an adverse decision that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in her decision-making process.

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

James E. Moody
William S. Fields
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 E; Guideline F DIGEST: The Judge’s findings that Applicant had not shown any effort to resolve this is consistent with the record that was before her, as is her conclusion that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action concerning any debts that may have resulted from circumstances outside his control. Even discounting the debts that Applicant has claimed are not his responsibility, his obligation to the IRS, the judgment, and the other debts that Applicant admitted are sufficient to support the Judge’s adverse decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-04158.a1 DATE: 03/15/2018 DATE: March 15, 2018 In Re: ------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-04158

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 January 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) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On October 27, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gina L. Marine 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 failed to consider all of the evidence, resulting in an adverse decision that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline E are not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant, who is 87 years old, was a Government employee from 1954 through 1984. He has worked for a Defense contractor since 2003. He received a DoD security clearance in 1992. Applicant’s SOR alleges numerous delinquent debts, many of which Applicant admitted. However, he denied seven of them, although they are established by Applicant’s credit reports. Applicant attributed the denied debts to his son, who shares Applicant’s name. He also stated that he incurred medical expenses on behalf of his grandson, although medical accounts are not explicitly alleged in the SOR. The SOR debts include a Federal tax lien for over $9,800 and a court judgment for over $1,800. Applicant negotiated an installment plan with the IRS and paid $232 pursuant to the agreement. He made three payments, totaling $360, on the judgment. He provided no documentary evidence of payment or resolution of any other debts. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge found that Applicant’s debts were numerous and not unlikely to recur. She stated even if some of Applicant’s debts resulted from circumstances beyond his control, Applicant did not show responsible action in regard to them. She noted Applicant’s claim that some of his debts were actually his son’s, although she found that Applicant had not demonstrated any effort to resolve this issue. Regarding the IRS agreement, she stated that one payment is not enough to show compliance.

DISCUSSION

Applicant reiterates his contention that some of the debts alleged in the SOR were not his. He also cites to his SOR response, that he incurred debt in connection with his brother’s death. The Judge addressed Applicant’s claims that some debts were his son’s. Her observation that Applicant had not shown any effort to resolve this is consistent with the record that was before her, as is her conclusion that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action concerning any debts that may have resulted from circumstances outside his control. Even discounting the debts that Applicant has claimed are not his responsibility, his obligation to the IRS, the judgment, and the other debts that Applicant admitted are sufficient to support the Judge’s adverse decision. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption the Judge considered all of the evidence, nor has he shown 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). 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board