CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01679.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01679.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01679.a1

Mar 8, 2018· Hon. Charles C. Hale· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 26 delinquent debts. The judge determined that all alleged debts were established through credit reports or the applicant's own admissions.

A primary reason for the denial was the applicant's failure to provide sufficient documentation to support her claims that these debts had been resolved. Despite being given the opportunity to submit additional evidence via a FORM, the applicant did not respond.

Consequently, the judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate the disqualifying conditions raised under AG ¶ 19. The denial was affirmed, with the judge concluding that granting the clearance would not be consistent with national security interests.

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 8, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant represented herself.
Hearing heldDec 7, 2017
Decision dateMar 8, 2018

Cite For

Expectation of Documentation for Debt Resolution Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Evidence
Importance of National Security in Clearance Decisions

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 her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant argued that the Judge erred in finding her delinquent on a student loan and in not recognizing her financial arrangements. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowWilford H. Ross — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge erred in making findings that she was delinquent on a student loan and that she did not seek financial counseling.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Some debts were paid, removed, disputed, or in payment arrangements.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge's material findings are supported by substantial evidence, and the decision is sustainable on this record. The Applicant failed to establish that the Judge committed harmful error.

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

William S. Fields
Charles C. Hale
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: The Appeal Board has previously held it is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present documentation about the resolution of specific debts. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-01679.a1 DATE: 03/08/2018 DATE: March 08, 2018 In Re: ---------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01679

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 8, 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 December 7, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross 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 26 delinquent debts. In her response to the SOR, Applicant stated certain debts were paid in full and other debts were in payment arrangements. She also denied some debts. However, she provided no documents to support her claims. She was later sent Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) and was given the opportunity to make objections and submit additional information.1 She did not submit a response to the FORM. In the decision, the Judge indicated that all of the alleged debts were established by credit reports in the record or by Applicant’s admissions. In his analysis, the Judge noted that Applicant provided no documentary evidence of payments to alleged creditors or of debt disputes. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on some allegations and against her on others. In her appeal brief, Applicant claims the Judge erred in making findings that she was delinquent on a student loan and that she did not seek financial counseling. She also claims some debts were paid, removed, disputed, or in payment arrangements. The Appeal Board has previously held it is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present documentation about the resolution of specific debts. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-03363 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 19, 2016). In this case, Applicant has failed to identify any document in the record that supports her claims on appeal. Based upon our review, the Judge’s material findings “are supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” See, Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. Applicant has failed to establish the Judge committed 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.” 1 In the FORM, Department Counsel amended the SOR by withdrawing six SOR allegations, changing the amount of one alleged debt, and adding sixteen new allegations. The Judge treated the amendment as a motion to amend the SOR, and he granted the portion withdrawing the six SOR allegations but denied the portions seeking to change the amount of a debt and to add new allegations. Neither Department Counsel’s amendment to the SOR nor the Judge’s treatment of it have been raised as an issue on appeal.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board