CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07593.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07593.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07593.a1

Feb 23, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor, holding a security clearance since 2012, was denied continued access under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant and ongoing financial issues. The applicant had numerous delinquent debts, prominently including a judgment exceeding $137,000. These financial problems were largely attributed to medical treatment expenses.

The appeal board upheld the denial, citing the applicant's failure to demonstrate responsible action in addressing his financial difficulties. There were no clear indications that the applicant's financial issues were under control or resolved.

Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied, as the board found that the conditions raised under AG ¶ 19 were not mitigated.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's significant and ongoing financial problems raised security concerns.

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 issuedJun 14, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 2, 2017
Decision dateFeb 23, 2018

Cite For

Significant Financial Problems Under Guideline F
Importance of Financial Responsibility in National Security
Ongoing Financial Issues 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 whose security clearance was denied due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant challenged the Judge's findings as arbitrary and claimed an error regarding the amount saved monthly. The Board affirmed the decision, finding the error harmless and the Judge's conclusions sustainable based on the evidence presented.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

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.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError sustained
Applicant challenged the finding that he saved $3,800 a month.

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 while one finding was erroneous, it did not affect the overall decision. The Judge's findings were otherwise sustainable and supported by substantial evidence.

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
James E. Moody
Charles C. Hale

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: We conclude that one challenged finding is erroneous. However, given the totality of the evidence, we conclude that this error did not affect the Judge’s overall decision. Otherwise, the Judge’s findings are sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-07593.a1 DATE: 02/23/2018 DATE: February 23, 2018 In Re: --------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-07593

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 June 14, 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 hearing. On October 2, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola 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 and Analysis Applicant works for a Defense contractor and has held a clearance since 2012. Each month he and his wife save about $3,800. Applicant’s SOR lists numerous delinquent debts. The Judge found four of them against Applicant, all of which resulted from medical treatment. The largest was a judgment for over $137,000. Applicant attributed these debts to a medical emergency that he experienced in 2011, at a time when he had no health insurance. The Judge found that the four medical debts in question had not been resolved. The Judge concluded that Applicant’s financial problems are significant and ongoing. Despite the medical emergency being a circumstance outside his control, the Judge found that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action. He concluded that there are no clear indications that Applicant’s financial problems are under control.

DISCUSSION

Applicant challenges some of the Judge’s findings. For example, he states that the Judge erred in finding that he saved $3,800 a month. We note Applicant’s Exhibit C, which states that he and his wife have about that amount left over each month after expenses but save about $2,300. We also note Applicant’s testimony that some months he makes nothing due to not working. Tr. at 24- 25. We conclude that the challenged finding is erroneous. However, given the totality of the evidence, we conclude that this error did not affect the Judge’s overall decision. Therefore, it is harmless. Applicant challenges the finding that Applicant has held a security clearance since 2012. The Judge’s finding is sustainable given Applicant’s answer to a question in his security clearance application. Applicant stated that he had been granted access/eligibility in October 2012. Applicant has cited to no harmful error in the Judge’s findings. The Judge’s material findings are based upon substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04724 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2017). Applicant contends that his circumstances do not show an inability to satisfy debts, an unwillingness to do so, or a history of not meeting financial obligations.1 We construe this as an argument that his financial circumstances do not raise security concerns. However, given the

FOOTNOTES

1 Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 19 (a-c). amount of delinquent debt alleged in the SOR, and given a paucity of evidence of debt resolution,2 we find no error in the Judge’s conclusion that the evidence raised concerns about Applicant’s judgment and reliability. See Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 18 for the proposition that failure to satisfy debts may impugn an applicant’s self-control, judgment, or willingness to follow rules and regulations, thereby raising questions about his or her ability to protect classified information. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01737 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 14, 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.”

2 Applicant received medical treatment requiring extensive hospitalization. Applicant was not satisfied with the care that he received and informed the hospital that he would not pay his bill. He advised his clearance interviewer that he had “no intention of making payments to the hospital unless he is required to.” Item 2, Interview Summary, at 5 . 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: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board