CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01749.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date8/21/2018
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 16-01749.h2) →See the hearing decision (Case 16-01749.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 EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- 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 16-01749.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01749.a1

Aug 21, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 55-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant admitted to some debts but denied others, and critically, failed to disclose delinquent debts in her e-QIP, which was considered a falsification.

The decision cited Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate financial stability or a good-faith effort to resolve her outstanding debts.

Ultimately, the case was remanded for further consideration, meaning no final clearance decision was reached at that time. The remand was specifically for additional review of her financial stability and the full disclosure of all debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board will review the Judge’s decision to determine whether it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision that runs contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere difference of opinion.”
— ISCR Case No. 03-022861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 29, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateAug 21, 2018Decision remanded for further processing.

Cite For

Issues of Financial Stability Under Guideline F
Falsification of E-qip Responses Under Guideline E
Remand for Consideration of Previously Unaddressed Evidence

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

Remanded

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board found that the Judge did not adequately consider the Applicant's comments about her financial situation, leading to a remand for further consideration.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge failed to consider an important aspect of the case regarding the Applicant's financial disclosures, which constituted harmful error.

Ignored material evidence

On remand, the judge must

The Judge must consider the Applicant's remarks regarding her financial records and make findings of fact about that quote.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo 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 E; Guideline F DIGEST: While Applicant responded “No” to the questions that asked whether she experienced certain financial problems, she submitted in the Additional Comments of that document the following remarks:

Financial Records: In process of working payment arrangements with Student Loans and other miscellaneous accounts due to hardship: due to delay in wage checks occurring between November-December 2014. Replacement/ delayed checks arrived same day 1/3/15.

From our reading of the above quote, Applicant put the Government on notice that she had some delinquent debts. The Judge made no findings of fact about that quote. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 16-01749.a1 DATE: 08/21/2018 DATE: August 21, 2018 In Re: ---------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No.16-01749

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 October 29, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On April 30, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson 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 remand. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant is a 55-year-old employee of a defense contractor. She is divorced with five children. She earned a bachelor’s degree in 2004 and a master’s degree in 2009. The SOR alleged that Applicant had 18 delinquent debts. Her debts include nine student loans totaling about $77,000 and nine other charged-off or collection accounts totaling about $8,600. She admitted some debts and denied others. Credit reports confirm the alleged debts. Applicant’s financial problems were incurred while attending college and helping her children with their finances. In responding to the Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), she noted that she is recovering from a history of domestic violence. She receives no child support. She also experienced periods of unemployment between 2006 and 2008, unexpected vehicle expenses, and suffered a work injury. All of these factors contributed to her financial problems. Applicant’s student loans were opened between 2004 and 2007, became delinquent because of a delay in renewing a forbearance period, and were again placed in forbearance until March 2018. In responding to the FORM, she stated that she will set up automatic monthly payments for the student loans. Since receiving the SOR, she stated that she paid off most of the other delinquent debts by obtaining a loan to pay them. A concern exists about whether she will be able to pay that loan when it becomes due. Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) in 2015. In doing so, she responded “No” to questions that asked whether, in the past seven years, she had bills or debts turned over to a collection agency or had an account or credit card suspended, charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed. “These were false answers. Applicant failed to list any of the delinquent debts set forth in . . . the SOR.” Decision at 5.

The Judge’s Analysis While Applicant has experienced some circumstances beyond her control that contributed to her financial problems, insufficient information exists to conclude that she is financially stable or that she has the resources to meet her financial obligations now that her student loans are no longer in forbearance. She has not established that she made a good-faith effort to resolve her indebtedness. Applicant provided for her children instead of paying bills. She knew about her delinquent debt and deliberately failed to disclose them in her e-QIP. No mitigating conditions apply to that falsification.

DISCUSSION

Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding that she falsified her e-QIP. In deciding whether the Judge’s rulings or conclusions are arbitrary or capricious, the Board will review the Judge’s decision to determine whether: it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision that runs contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere difference of opinion. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-022861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006). While Applicant responded “No” to the questions in Section 26 of the e-QIP that asked whether she experienced certain financial problems, she submitted in the Additional Comments of that document the following remarks: SF 86 -Section 26 Financial Records: In process of working payment arrangements with Student Loans and other miscellaneous accounts due to hardship: due to delay in wage checks occurring between November-December 2014. Replacement/ delayed checks arrived same day 1/3/15.1 From our reading of the above quote, Applicant put the Government on notice that she had some delinquent debts. The Judge made no findings of fact about that quote. Consequently, the decision does not reflect that the Judge considered an important aspect of the case. This is harmful error that warrants correction. Based on the above, we remand the case to the Judge for processing consistent with the Directive. In her appeal brief, Applicant also raised other issues that are not ripe for consideration at this time and presented documents that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. Those documents constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 1 FORM Item 4 at 30.

ORDER

The Decision is REMANDED. 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