Loading case…

ISCR 16-02722.a1: Guideline E security clearance appeal, denied (2018) · CASE

ISCR Case 16-02722.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02722.a1

Jan 31, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A retired military member, who is a high school graduate, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant's financial difficulties and related personal conduct issues arose from a divorce and subsequent periods of unemployment.

The Statement of Reasons detailed various debts, which the applicant acknowledged. However, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating the resolution of these debts. While explanations were offered regarding the impact of the divorce and unemployment on his financial situation, these were not deemed adequate to mitigate the concerns.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant did not demonstrate suitability for a security clearance, leading to the denial. The decision highlighted the lack of sufficient evidence for debt resolution, despite the applicant's admissions to the allegations.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG FraisedFinancial Considerations
AG EraisedPersonal Conduct

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 issuedNov 18, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 18, 2017
Decision dateJan 31, 2018

Cite for

Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Denial Based on Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution Leading to Security Clearance Denial

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. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's findings or analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Tuider denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued 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 findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The applicant did not demonstrate material errors in the Judge's findings or that the evidence was weighed improperly.

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)
James E. Moody
Charles C. Hale

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; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant cites to evidence that he believes is favorable to his effort to obtain a favorable result, such as his divorce and the effect it had on his finances. Among other things, he states that one of the SOR debts was a loan in his wife’s name. The Judge found, however, that Applicant had admitted, with explanations, each of the SOR allegations. We also note that, in his clearance interview, Applicant stated that all of his accounts were in his name. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-02722.a1 DATE: 01/31/2018 DATE: January 31, 2018 In Re: ----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-02722

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 November 18, 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 October 18, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert Tuider 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 findings under Guideline E are not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issue raised on appeal: A high school graduate, Applicant attended college part-time but did not receive a degree. He divorced his wife in 2010 and pays her a little over $500 each month in child support. He retired from the U.S. military in 2006. Applicant’s SOR lists several delinquent debts. The Judge found that two of them were resolved. For the remainder, however, which totaled nearly $21,000, he found that they had not been addressed. Applicant attributed his financial difficulties to “a horrible divorce which at times left [him] battling to pay off overdue bills” and to four periods of unemployment. Decision at 3. The Judge noted that Applicant has been gainfully employed for most of his adult life. However, he found that Applicant had not presented sufficient evidence of debt resolution and that the record as it stands does not show that Applicant is suitable for a security clearance.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to evidence that he believes is favorable to his effort to obtain a favorable result, such as his divorce and the effect it had on his finances. Among other things, he states that one of the SOR debts was a loan in his wife’s name. The Judge found, however, that Applicant had admitted, with explanations, each of the SOR allegations. We also note that, in his clearance interview, Applicant stated that all of his accounts were in his name. Item 3, Clearance Interview, at 5.1 Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge’s findings contain material errors. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1 for the standard we apply in evaluating a Judge’s factual findings. Neither has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, nor has he rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-03219 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov.15, 2017). 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 Applicant submitted a copy of an automobile loan in his wife’s name for which he was a co-signer. The loan number corresponds to that of the allegation that Applicant discussed in his brief. Promissory Note, dated September 10, 2004, included in Applicant’s response to the File of Relevant Material.