CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01869.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01869.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01869.a1

Jan 16, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case concerns an applicant who sought a security clearance, representing herself, under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant's appeal was based on claims that her debts were resolved.

However, the judge found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation for several of these debts. While Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20 was raised, Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 21(a) and AG ¶ 21(c) were applied. Despite this, the lack of adequate documentation for numerous debts was a critical factor. New evidence presented by the applicant on appeal was not considered, as it was prohibited at that stage.

Ultimately, the security clearance was DENIED. The Appeal Board affirmed this decision, underscoring the paramount importance of national security in all clearance determinations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not Recent.The applicant did not provide adequate evidence to support claims of resolved debts.
AG ¶ 21(c)rejectedThe Individual Has Received Counseling for the Problem.No documentation was provided to substantiate claims of financial counseling.

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 3, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 23, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Gina L. Marine.
Decision dateJan 16, 2018Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Cite For

Importance of Documentation in Financial Clearance Cases
Prohibition Against New Evidence on Appeal
Standard for Granting Security Clearance Related to National Security Interests

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 filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious, but the Board affirmed the decision, stating that the applicant did not present new evidence that could be considered and that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGina L. Marine — denied the clearance (split findings)

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 unfavorable decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision, which was based on substantial evidence and followed required procedures. The Judge's findings regarding the applicant's debts were reasonable and well-articulated.

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
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: Much of Applicant’s appeal brief consists of information that was not presented to the Judge for consideration. Based on that information, Applicant makes various arguments, including that some of her debts have been resolved or removed from her credit reports. However, such information presented for the first time on appeal constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-01869.a1 DATE: 01/16/2018 DATE: January 16, 2018 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01869

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 3, 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 October 23, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gina L. Marine 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 unfavorable decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The SOR alleged 17 delinquent debts totaling about $10,800. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on some debts and against her on others. Much of Applicant’s appeal brief consists of information that was not previously presented to the Judge for consideration. This includes a narrative statement, character reference letter, credit reports, documents from creditors, and other matters. Based on that information, Applicant makes various arguments, including that some of her debts have been resolved or removed from her credit reports. However, such information presented for the first time on appeal constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In her appeal brief, Applicant claims that she provided documentation to the Judge in her response to the SOR showing alleged medical debts were resolved. She did provide a document from one of her creditors showing a medical debt (SOR ¶ 1.q) was resolved, and the Judge found in favor of her on that debt. For other medical debts, she made representations that debts were paid, a payment arrangement was established, or the creditor could not locate a debt. She, however, did not provide documentation corroborating those claims; specifically, she provided no proof that she paid certain debts or made payments under the payment arrangement. The Appeal Board has previously stated that it is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present documentation showing the resolution of individual debts. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-10310 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 30, 2008). We find no error in the Judge’s findings regarding the medical debts. The balance of Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016). Applicant has not established that 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.”

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