CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-02852.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-02852.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02852.a1

Jan 30, 2018· Hon. James E. Moody· appeal

Summary

A military reservist and federal contractor was denied a security clearance primarily due to unresolved financial issues under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had defaulted on several student loans and failed to provide corroborating evidence for claims of loan consolidation.

Further concerns included inconsistent payments on these loans since 2015 and the absence of a clear repayment plan. The applicant also did not demonstrate resolution of minor credit card debts. These issues collectively raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 19.

The judge determined there was insufficient evidence of good-faith efforts by the applicant to address these financial problems. Consequently, the adverse decision was affirmed, with the denial based on national security interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

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 26, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 20, 2017
Decision dateJan 30, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Financial Issues
Importance of National Security Interests in Clearance Determinations

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 the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the Applicant did not rebut the presumption that all evidence was considered and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowFrancisco Mendez — denied the clearance

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 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 that the Judge properly considered the evidence in the record. The Board concluded that the Applicant did not meet the burden of persuasion for mitigation of financial concerns.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

James E. Moody
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: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 16-02852.a1 DATE: 01/30/2018 DATE: January 30, 2018 In Re: ------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-02852

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Ryan C. Nerney, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On September 26, 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 20, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez 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. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings and Analysis Applicant, who is a military reservist, has held a security clearance since 2013. He has worked as a Federal contractor since 2015. He defaulted on several student loans. He states that he has consolidated them but did not provide corroboration. The records that he did submit show that he made inconsistent payments since 2015. He did not submit a copy of a repayment plan or documents showing that he is abiding by such a plan. He also failed to show that he was resolving two minor credit card accounts, one of which he had promised to pay on his security clearance application that he completed in 2015. The Judge concluded that Applicant had failed to meet his burden of persuasion as to mitigation. The Judge noted that Applicant has been gainfully employed since 2015 and has earned a six-figure salary since 2016. He stated that Applicant’s payments on his student loans have been irregular. He found that none of the mitigating conditions apply to Applicant’s circumstances.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all of the evidence, including his years of service to the Government. Applicant’s argument is not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-00257 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2017). Applicant cites to a Hearing Office case that he believes supports his effort to receive a favorable determination. We give this case due consideration as persuasive authority. However, Hearing Office cases are binding neither on other Hearing Office Judges nor on the Appeal Board. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-03219 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 15, 2017). Applicant cites to the Judge’s comment that Applicants are not required to be debt-free. However, there is no reason to believe that the Judge held against Applicant merely because Applicant had unresolved debts as of the close of the record. To the contrary, the Judge’s decision rested on a paucity of evidence to show that Applicant was making reasonable and good-faith efforts to address his financial problems. The Judge’s decision is not contradictory, as Applicant argues, nor does it otherwise suggest that the Judge failed to consider the evidence as a cumulative whole. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-00578 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Sep. 26, 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, 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