CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01932.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01932.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01932.a1

Aug 30, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. These included a $235,000 tax lien and multiple delinquent loans. The appeal board upheld the denial, citing the applicant's failure to provide adequate documentation to substantiate her claims regarding these financial obligations.

The disqualifying condition F.1 was raised, indicating that the applicant's financial difficulties were a security concern. The judge determined that the applicant's arguments did not demonstrate any harmful error in the initial decision to deny clearance.

Ultimately, the applicant's inability to provide sufficient documentary evidence to support her financial status and address the substantial tax lien and delinquent loans led to the denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“It is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present documentation supporting their claims about the status of alleged financial problems.”
— ISCR Case No. 15-03363 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 19, 2016)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 12, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 18, 2018
Decision dateAug 30, 2018

Cite For

Importance of Documentation in Financial Matters Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Denial Based on Substantial Evidence Regarding Financial Obligations
Expectation for Applicants to Substantiate Claims About Financial Status

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 a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that she lacked necessary information during the hearing and that the Judge's findings were erroneous. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions regarding the Applicant's financial status and obligations.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDavid M. White — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted that she did not have all the information needed at the hearing and incorrectly answered a question regarding job loss.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that her student loans are current, but the Judge found no supporting documentation.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's findings regarding her financial obligations were arbitrary and capricious.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were based on substantial evidence and that the Applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the decision. The Judge's conclusions regarding the Applicant's financial issues were reasonable and supported by the evidence presented.

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

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
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: It is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present documentation supporting their claims about the status of alleged financial problems. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-01932.a1 DATE: 08/30/2018 DATE: August 30, 2018 In Re: ------------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01932

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 12, 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 hearing. On June 18, 2018, after the hearing, Administrative Judge David M. White 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 a Federal tax lien filed against her in 2015 for about $235,000; had two delinquent Federal student loans totaling about $58,000; had two delinquent credit card accounts; and incurred about $5,000 in charges on a credit card account that she fraudulently opened in her former father-in-law’s name. The Judge found against Applicant on the tax lien, two student loans, and one of the two delinquent credit card accounts and found for her on the remaining SOR allegations. In her appeal brief, Applicant asserts that she did not have all the information she needed at the hearing to address the SOR allegations and she incorrectly answered the Judge’s question that asked whether she would lose her job if her security clearance was not granted. These matters are not a basis for granting Applicant any relief because they do not allege the Judge committed harmful error. Directive ¶¶ E3.1.32.1 through E3.1.32.3 Applicant contends that her student loans are current and will remain so until they are finally paid. In the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant testified her student loans were in forbearance until 2018. However, in concluding the student loans remained unresolved, the Judge stated no documentary evidence was submitted supporting Applicant’s claim that those loans were no longer in default. It is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present documentation supporting their claims about the status of alleged financial problems. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-03363 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 19, 2016). After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge’s material findings about the student loans are based on substantial evidence or constitute reasonable characterization or inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. Id. The balance of Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. For example, she states that she has complied with her obligations in an IRS agreement to resolve the tax lien but her ex-husband has failed to uphold his part of the deal. The Judge made findings about Applicant’s efforts to the resolve the tax lien, but also noted she offered no evidence of the IRS agreement, of seeking recourse against her ex-husband, or of the IRS not holding her responsible for this marital debt. Applicant also asserts that she is an upstanding citizen, valued worker, and would never betray the trust and confidence placed in her to protect classified or sensitive information. Her arguments, however, are not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016). Applicant has not identified any harmful error in the Judge’s decision. 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: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board