CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-04528.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-04528.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04528.a1

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

Summary

A married applicant with four children and a college education was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from numerous unresolved delinquent debts, including taxes and medical expenses.

The applicant attributed these financial difficulties to periods of unemployment and reduced income. However, the applicant failed to provide corroborating evidence for claims that some debts had been resolved.

The judge determined that the applicant's financial problems were recent and remained unresolved, indicating a lack of responsible action. These factors led to the denial of the security clearance.

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 12, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateJan 25, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Corroboration in Claims of Debt Resolution
Recent Financial Problems as a Basis for Security Clearance Denial

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 had numerous delinquent debts. The Administrative Judge denied the clearance, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated responsible action regarding his debts. The applicant appealed, arguing errors in the Judge's findings and evidence weighing. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful errors that would affect the outcome.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge erred in her finding concerning the reason he had taken out the loan from his retirement account.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

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 err in weighing the evidence. The decision was affirmed as it was consistent with national security interests.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. 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 has numerous delinquent debts, for such things as state and Federal taxes, medical expenses, mortgage payments, a timeshare account, etc. He attributed his financial problems to several periods of unemployment and to reductions in income upon gaining employment. He took out a loan from his 401(k) plan, which resulted in tax liabilities. The Judge found that Applicant had not corroborated his claims of debt resolution. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-04528.a1 DATE: 01/25/2017 DATE: January 25, 2017 In Re: --------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-04528

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 12, 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 9, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s findings of fact contained errors and 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 is married with four children. He served in the Reserves, deploying during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He is college educated.1 Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, for such things as state and Federal taxes, medical expenses, mortgage payments, a timeshare account, etc. He attributed his financial problems to several periods of unemployment and to reductions in income upon gaining employment. He took out a loan from his 401(k) plan, which resulted in tax liabilities. The Judge found that Applicant had not corroborated his claims of debt resolution, for example compliance with payment plans, etc. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge stated that Applicant’s financial problems are recent and, for the most part, unresolved. She did enter favorable findings for some debts, including a large one to the IRS. However, for the balance she concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action, reiterating her findings about a lack of corroboration for Applicant’s claims of debt reduction. Some of Applicant’s debts had been paid through garnishment, which, she stated, did not evidence a good- faith effort to pay debts. She concluded that Applicant had failed to meet his burden of persuasion.

DISCUSSION

Applicant argues that the Judge erred in her finding concerning the reason he had taken out the loan from his retirement account. This finding is consistent with the record evidence. Even if this were an error, however, it was harmless in that it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03601 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 1, 2015). The Judge’s material findings are based upon “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. Applicant includes a substantial amount of information in an effort to provide context for the issues of security concern and his efforts at debt resolution. Applicant’s arguments are not sufficient to rebut 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). Neither is it 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. 14-06686 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 27, 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 Y. 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 Item 2, Security Clearance Application, states at p. 9 that Applicant has a bachelor’s degree.