CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-02523.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-02523.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02523.a1

Sep 27, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed primarily from significant unresolved financial issues, with the applicant admitting to 14 of 15 delinquent debts totaling over $57,000.

Despite some payments made towards certain obligations, the applicant failed to present a concrete plan for addressing the largest debts. This lack of meaningful action on the three largest debts and two smaller debts, coupled with insufficient efforts to mitigate security concerns, led to the denial.

The appeal board affirmed the decision, emphasizing that the applicant's financial irresponsibility posed an unmitigated security risk. Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(c) were raised, while mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(d) and AG ¶ 20(e) were considered but ultimately deemed insufficient to overcome the concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 20(c)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not demonstrate a concrete plan for addressing unresolved debts.
AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's actions were insufficient to mitigate 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 issuedSep 19, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 31, 2018
Decision dateSep 27, 2018

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Concerns Despite Partial Debt Resolution
Affirmation of Denial Based on 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 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, but the Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's decision-making process. The Board noted that the Applicant's financial issues were not sufficiently mitigated and that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance. The Applicant did not demonstrate that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

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 E; Guideline F DIGEST: The Directive provides that an applicant whose security clearance has been finally denied or revoked by DOHA is barred from reapplication for one year from the date of the initial unfavorable clearance decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-02523.a1 DATE: 09/27/2018 DATE: September 27, 2018 In Re: -------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-02523

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 19, 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). Department Counsel requested a hearing. On July 31, 2018, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., 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. The Judge’s favorable finding under Guideline E has not been raised as an issue on appeal. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis At the hearing, Department Counsel withdrew two SOR allegations. Excluding the withdrawn allegations, the SOR alleged that Applicant had 15 delinquent debts. He admitted 14 of those debts totaling more than $57,000. Applicant attributed his financial problems to the termination of his long-term relationship with a co-habitant in about 2010. Since submitting his security clearance application in 2015, Applicant paid eight debts, resolved his child support arrearage, and established a payment plan for another debt. However, he took no meaningful action on the three largest debts from a single creditor or on two smaller debts. He did not describe any concrete plans for addressing those unresolved debts. The security concern arising from the five debts that he has not addressed are not mitigated.

DISCUSSION

In his appeal, Applicant contends that he provided receipts showing he satisfied a majority of the debts and he explained his plan to address the largest unresolved debts. He also states that he has met his child support obligations, that he is responsible for his elderly parents, and that he was advised to file bankruptcy but was not financially able to do so. His arguments are neither enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor sufficient to show the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01284 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2015). Applicant also asks that his case be reconsidered and he be given an opportunity to submit another security clearance application. We do not have authority to grant that request. The Directive provides that an applicant whose security clearance has been finally denied or revoked by DOHA is barred from reapplication for one year from the date of the initial unfavorable clearance decision. See Directive ¶ E3.1.37. 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