CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01238.a2 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date2/23/2018
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 16-01238.h2) →See the appeal decision (Case 16-01238.a1) →See the hearing decision (Case 16-01238.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 16-01238.a2denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01238.a2

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

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple outstanding debts. These included two judgments totaling approximately $7,600 and a medical debt of $148. The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a payment agreement for these financial obligations.

During the appeal process, the board affirmed the denial. It noted that the applicant's explanations regarding his debts and any new evidence he attempted to introduce could not be considered at the appellate stage. The board's decision was based solely on the record established during the initial adjudication.

Both disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline F were raised and applied, specifically F2 and F3. However, the applicant's inability to provide adequate documentation for debt resolution ultimately led to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F2raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

F3rejectedThe Individual Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Repay Overdue Creditors or Has Otherwise Resolved DebtsThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of payments under the payment plan.
F2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's medical issues were not documented in the record.

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 20, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldJul 14, 2017Decision issued by Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman.
Decision dateFeb 23, 2018Appeal board affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on Considering New Evidence During Appeal
Requirements for Demonstrating Good Faith Efforts to Resolve Debts

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, particularly regarding a payment agreement for debts. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, stating that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to overturn the denial.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — 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 contended 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 decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's analysis of the financial considerations.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealNo de-novo re-decisionSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural compliance

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 raises the issue of the absence of a payment agreement that was discussed in the Judge’s original decision. That issue was resolved by remanding the first decision so the Judge could consider the missing documents. Applicant also offers explanations about his debts that are not contained in the record and constitute new evidence. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-01238.a2 DATE: 02/23/2018 DATE: February 23, 2018 In Re: -----------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01238

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 20, 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 July 14, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On September 26, 2017, we remanded the case. On October 26, 2017, the Judge issued a Decision on Remand, denying Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant again appealed pursuant to the Directive. Applicant raised the following issue in his latest appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s Decision on Remand. The SOR alleged that Applicant had two judgments against him totaling about $7,600, a delinquent medical debt for $148, and a charged-off debt for about $6,500. In the original decision, the Judge found for Applicant on the charged-off debt because he was only an authorized user of that account and against him on the other debts. The Judge noted that Applicant claimed he had a payment agreement for the two judgments, but did not provide any documents supporting that claim. Although Applicant claimed the medical debt was opened without his knowledge, the Judge noted that Applicant did not dispute the debt with the creditor or credit bureaus. We remanded the original decision to the Judge because Applicant claimed he submitted documents regarding a payment agreement for the two judgments with his SOR answer. In the Decision on Remand, the Judge stated that he reopened the record to provide Applicant an opportunity to submit any documents that he claimed to have submitted with his SOR answer. Applicant responded by submitting a packet of documents, including a payment agreement (unsigned by Applicant or his spouse) for the two judgments, which the Judge marked and entered into the record. The Judge indicated that he assumed Applicant signed the payment agreement, but also noted that Applicant did not submit any documentary evidence of payments under the plan. The Judge again denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance by essentially adhering to his analysis of the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the original decision. In his latest appeal brief, Applicant again raises the issue of the absence of the payment agreement as a reason for the Judge’s original adverse decision. This issue, however, was resolved by remanding the original decision so that the Judge could consider the missing documents. Applicant also contends that he did not provide proof of payments under the payment plan because he made those payments by certified check and only had a few emails documenting those payments. He further explained that he encountered serious medical problems that limited his ability to make the payments for about four months. Soon after he returned to work, he requested reinstatement of the payment plan, but discovered the creditor had taken action to garnish his pay, and he was attempting to modify the amount of the monthly garnishment. His explanation about these matters are not contained in the record and constitute new evidence that the Board cannot consider on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, both as to the mitigating conditions and the whole-person factors. Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error. 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