CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01937.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01937.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01937.a1

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

Summary

A security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) for an applicant representing himself, despite a nearly 34-year work history. The denial stemmed from unresolved financial issues and the applicant's failure to provide adequate documentation demonstrating either financial stability or progress in resolving delinquent debts.

The appeal board upheld the denial, noting that while the applicant's long service was acknowledged, it was insufficient to mitigate the significant financial concerns. The board emphasized that the applicant did not provide substantiating evidence for claims of debt resolution.

Ultimately, the applicant's inability to document the resolution of financial issues, coupled with the lack of mitigating evidence, led to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's long service was noted but did not outweigh the financial concerns.

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 issuedOct 10, 2016
Answer filedOct 19, 2017Decision on written record requested.
Hearing held—Applicant represented himself.
Decision dateJan 16, 2018Appeal board affirmed denial.

Cite For

Insufficient Documentation to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Weight of Long Service in Security Clearance Decisions
Limitations of Appeal Board Review Regarding New 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

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not identify any factual errors in the Administrative Judge's decision but requested more consideration of his work history. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's decision-making process.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowElizabeth M. Matchinski — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant stated he cannot point out any factual errors made by the Administrative Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not allege any harmful error and the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence. The applicant's request for more weight on his work record did not demonstrate that the Judge's decision was arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
William S. Fields

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 states that he “cannot point out any factual errors that have been made by the Administrative Judge” but “ask[s] that more weight be taken in considering [his] work record for nearly 34 years.” The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. It does not review a case de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-01937.a1 DATE: 01/16/2018 DATE: January 16, 2018 In Re: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01937

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 10, 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 19, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant requested that his case be decided on the written record and filed only a one-page narrative response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). The Judge based her adverse decision in large measure on the lack of documentation to substantiate his assertion that he has been working to resolve his delinquent debts.1 Decision at 9-10. On appeal, Applicant offers new evidence in the form of medical treatment and billing documents. The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In his appeal brief Applicant states that he “cannot point out any factual errors that have been made by the Administrative Judge” but “ask[s] that more weight be taken in considering [his] work record for nearly 34 years.” The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. It does not review a case de novo. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08349 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 4, 2017). The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08684 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2017). In reaching her adverse decision, the Judge specifically noted that “Applicant’s many years of service, primarily as a civilian contractor on behalf of the military, weighs in his favor.” Decision at 10. However, she also noted that: “In choosing a decision on the written record, it was incumbent on Applicant to present the income and expense information to explain his delinquencies, but also to reflect his financial stability. His evidence falls short of meeting his burden of overcoming the financial considerations security concerns.” Id. After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for her decision. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the

FOOTNOTES

1 “He provided no documentation showing ongoing payments and so it cannot be determined whether he has made enough progress to conclude that his debts are likely to be resolved in the near future.” Decision at 9. interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). Therefore, the Judge’s unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable. Order The decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board