CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-06908.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-06908.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-06908.a1

Jan 18, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor employee, who is a high school graduate, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from approximately $31,000 in unresolved financial issues, with the judge citing Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(c).

The judge determined that the applicant's financial difficulties were primarily a result of her own choices and a lack of responsible action concerning her debts. Specifically, the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of debt resolution efforts and did not take responsible action regarding her financial obligations.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's financial challenges originated from her own decisions rather than circumstances beyond her control, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 20(c)raisedFinancial 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 issuedApr 6, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateJan 18, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Lack of Evidence of Responsible Action in Debt Resolution
Financial Difficulties Attributed to Personal Choices Rather Than External Circumstances

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 after being denied 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 in the analysis of the evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowThomas M. Crean — 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 considered all evidence and did not weigh it in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The decision was affirmed based on the substantial evidence in the record.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael 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 not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither has she demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse deicision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-06908.a1 DATE: 01/18/2017 DATE: January 18, 2017 In Re: ------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-06908

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 April 6, 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 22, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean 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, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact A high school graduate, Applicant attended college for two years. She worked for a Defense contractor since mid-2007. She has two children. In 2005, she held a clearance from a Government agency for which she interned.

Applicant’s SOR lists numerous delinquent debts, for such things as car repossessions, medical expenses, telephone services, rent, traffic tickets, etc. The debts total about $31,000. She had similar debts when interviewed in 2009 for clearance eligibility. Applicant’s problems began when she used credit cards to pay debts while she was in school. She lived with her mother, whose loss of a job meant that the mother could no longer share in family expenses. Applicant told her clearance investigator that she had paid a number of her debts and stated that she is doing everything possible to resolve her financial difficulties. She did not provide any corroboration to the investigator, however. Applicant presented a recent credit report that showed that she had paid two small accounts and had made payments on others. Others, however, were written-off. Otherwise, she did not corroborate her claims of debt resolution. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s debts did not result from conditions beyond her control but, rather, from her own choices. He stated that almost all of her debt was caused by the use of credit cards. Moreover, Applicant has not shown responsible action in regard to her debts. The Judge also concluded that Applicant had not made good-faith efforts to resolve her problems, nor had she shown a track record of debt resolution. He stated that she had not presented evidence of a reasonable plan to pay her debts. The Judge also noted that Applicant had not received financial counseling. Applicant did contact a credit counseling service but did not want to pay the fees. The Judge stated that, even though she had been gainfully employed in a good-paying job for many years, Applicant did not demonstrate a record of consistent action to resolve her financial difficulties.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s appeal brief includes new evidence. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant has attached to her brief copies of favorable Hearing Office decisions that she believes are similar to her own. We have given these cases due consideration as persuasive authority. However, the cited cases have significant differences from Applicant’s own, and each case must be decided on its own merits. In any event, Hearing Office cases are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-04096 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2016). Applicant’s brief cites to her evidence in mitigation, and she draws our attention to favorable comments by the Judge. In addition, she includes a copy of the Judge’s decision with specific findings highlighted for emphasis. Applicant has not rebutted 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 has she demonstrated 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). Applicant notes that her clearance interview summary includes a statement to the effect that she is unquestionably willing to pay her debts and live within her means. This represents the interviewer’s summary of Applicant’s answers rather than his own evaluation of her circumstances. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03069 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 30, 2015). Applicant states that, without a clearance, she will lose her job. The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02619 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 7, 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 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