CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-04415.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-04415.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04415.a1

Mar 16, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant unmitigated financial concerns. The applicant had 19 delinquent debts, totaling approximately $30,000, which were substantiated by credit reports.

Despite the applicant's claims of improved financial circumstances and military service, he failed to provide evidence of payment or efforts to address these debts. The judge found that the applicant's financial issues indicated poor judgment and raised reliability concerns, which were not adequately mitigated.

Consequently, the government's security concerns, as outlined in AG ¶ 18, remained unresolved. The applicant's security clearance was therefore denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 18raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Government does not have to wait until an applicant has compromised or mishandled classified information before it can deny the applicant a clearance.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 28, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateMar 16, 2018

Cite For

Impact of Delinquent Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline F
Importance of Providing Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns
The Government's Discretion in Denying Clearance Based on Financial Issues Without Prior Security Violations

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 who was denied due to delinquent debts totaling about $30,000, raising security concerns under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's conclusion was not based on sound evidence. The Board affirmed the denial, finding the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and properly articulated.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — 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 conclusion that he is a security risk is not based on sound evidence.

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 denial of the security clearance. The Board concluded that the applicant's delinquent debts raised security concerns that were not mitigated.

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
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 F DIGEST: It is well established that an applicant’s delinquent debts can raise security concerns. While an absence of prior security violations is a matter that a Judge should consider, along with all the other evidence in the record, it does not preclude a Judge from concluding that an applicant’s circumstances present security concerns that the applicant failed to mitigate. The Government does not have to wait until an applicant has compromised or mishandled classified information before it can deny the applicant a clearance. Even individuals with good prior records can encounter circumstances in which their judgment and reliability might be compromised. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-04415.a1 DATE: 03/16/2018 DATE: March 16, 2018 In Re: ---------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-04415

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 28, 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 decision on the written record. On November 17, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge’s Findings and Conclusions The SOR alleged that Applicant owed 19 delinquent debts totaling about $30,000. All of the allegations are supported by credit reports and disclosures he made in his security clearance applications and a background interview. He did not provide any documentation that he paid, or that he is paying, any of the alleged debts. Applicant did not mitigate the Government’s security concerns.

DISCUSSION

In his appeal brief, Applicant stated that he has a record of being a solid citizen, including service in the military for 11 years; that his financial situation is improving; and that he qualified for a Veterans Affairs loan to purchase a home and for disability payments. He argues the Judge’s conclusion that he is a security risk is not based on sound evidence. This argument amounts to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016). Applicant also argues there is nothing in his record to indicate that he is a security risk. It is well established that an applicant’s delinquent debts can raise security concerns. Guideline F states that “[f]ailure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicated poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raises questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information” and “[a]nindividual who is overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds.”1 While an absence of prior security violations is a matter that a Judge should consider, along with all the other evidence in the record, it does not preclude a Judge from concluding that an applicant’s circumstances present security concerns that the applicant failed to mitigate. The Government does not have to wait until an applicant has compromised or mishandled classified information before it can deny the applicant a clearance. Even individuals with good prior records can encounter circumstances in which their judgment and reliability might be compromised. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-14648 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2015); Adams v. Laird, 420 F. 2d 230, 238-239 (D. C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1039 (1970). 1 Directive, Encl. 2, App A ¶ 18. 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board