CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01373.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01373.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01373.a1

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

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to six delinquent debts totaling approximately $11,400. These debts included two child support accounts. The applicant admitted to some of these financial obligations but provided limited documentation to dispute others.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the initial decision. The board emphasized that national security considerations are paramount in security clearance determinations.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20(a), which addresses financial irresponsibility. The applicant's failure to resolve or adequately document his efforts to address the significant delinquent debts, particularly the child support obligations, led to the final decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)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 issuedSep 30, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 21, 2017
Decision dateMar 9, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of National Security in Clearance Decisions
Limitations on the Judge's Role in Investigating Financial Claims

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 was brought by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge failed to investigate his child support payments. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — 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 contends that the Judge did not investigate whether child support payments were being taken from his weekly income.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
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 contends that the Judge did not investigate whether child support payments were being taken from of his weekly income. The Directive does not authorize a Judge to act as an investigator for either party. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-01373.a1 DATE: 03/09/2018 DATE: March 09, 2018 In Re: ------------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01373

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 September 30, 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 21, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had six delinquent debts totaling about $11,400. Applicant disputed two alleged telecommunications debts, one for less than $100 and the other for about $1,300, but provided no documentation of those disputes. He admitted the other alleged debts, including two child support accounts placed for collection. He provided a printout record showing child support payments from November 2016 to January 2017. The child support accounts were opened in 1996 and 1999 and have been delinquent since 2013. “He also suffered a stroke during a prolonged period of unemployment. Applicant did not provide information about the financial impacts of his medical problem or about his efforts to address his debts.” Decision at 3. In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that he is paying his child support obligation as well as his other bills. He also provided a pay stub for December 2017 that shows he has two attachments from his pay, presumably for the child support payments. The pay stub constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board may not consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.1.29. He also contends that the Judge did not investigate whether child support payments were being taken from of his weekly income. The Directive does not authorize a Judge to act as an investigator for either party. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-06659 at 5 (App. Bd. Oct. 22, 2012). Applicant’s appeal brief fails to establish the Judge committed any harmful error. 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.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board