CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00141.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00141.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00141.a1

Mar 9, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A retired military E-6 was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant had multiple delinquent debts and a history of failed bankruptcy attempts. The appeal board affirmed the denial, citing the applicant's failure to demonstrate responsible debt management.

Specifically, the applicant did not provide evidence that his debts resulted from circumstances beyond his control. Furthermore, he failed to show responsible actions regarding these debts, such as participating in financial counseling or implementing a budget.

The judge also noted the likelihood of recurring financial problems, evidenced by additional delinquencies appearing in a credit report generated after the Statement of Reasons. These factors collectively 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 issuedJun 10, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldNov 17, 2017
Decision dateMar 9, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Lack of Evidence for Financial Counseling and Budgeting as a Basis for Denial
Recurring Financial Problems as a Concern for Security Clearance Eligibility

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 under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis or conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDavid M. White — 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's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant did not demonstrate that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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: Applicant did not present any information to show that his debts arose from circumstances outside his control or that the had acted responsibly in regard to them. He presented no evidence of financial counseling, budgeting, or evidence that his financial problems are under control. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-00141.a1 DATE: 03/09/2018 DATE: March 09, 2018 In Re: -------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00141

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 10, 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 David M. White 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 Applicant retired as an E-6 from the military and has worked overseas for a Defense contractor since early 2011. He has held a clearance since 1992. Applicant’s SOR lists several delinquent debts, for such things as an unpaid balance on a consumer loan, Federal taxes, automobile repossessions, a credit card, an apartment lease, and a past-due debt resulting from a first mortgage on a home that he purchased in 2015. The Judge found that Applicant had not made regular mortgage payments since late 2015. Applicant entered into a loan modification agreement with his lender but provided no proof that he had made any payments. Applicant and his wife filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2008, but it was dismissed in 2010 due to failure to make payments. The couple filed again in January and June 2010 but failed to make payments under those proceedings as well. The Judge noted that Applicant had not presented evidence of financial counseling, of a budget, or of his ability to pay his delinquent debts. The Judge’s Analysis Applicant did not present any information to show that his debts arose from circumstances outside his control or that the had acted responsibly in regard to them. He presented no evidence of financial counseling, budgeting, or evidence that his financial problems are under control. The Judge concluded that Applicant’s financial problems are likely to recur, noting, among other things, additional delinquencies in a credit report generated after the date of his SOR.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s appeal includes material from outside the record, including documents that post- date the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant cites to evidence that he has paid some debts, that his bankruptcy filings were done upon the advice of an attorney, and that he purchased only one home in 2015, although the term “first mortgage” might imply that he had bought two. Applicant has not shown that the Judge failed to consider all of the evidence. Neither 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). To the extent that Applicant is challenging the Judge’s findings about his efforts at debt resolution, we conclude that the Judge’s material findings of security concern are supported by 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). The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, particularly his comments about a paucity of mitigating evidence. 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board