CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-03378.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-03378.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03378.a1

Feb 5, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to nine delinquent debts. These debts included a student loan and a Federal tax lien. The applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation of payments for some of these outstanding obligations.

While the applicant had a long service record, the mitigating conditions of AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(c), and AG ¶ 20(d) were applied but ultimately did not overcome the security concerns. The applicant's claims of new evidence related to a house fire were not considered during the appeal process.

Ultimately, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the judge's decision was arbitrary or contrary to law. Consequently, the denial of the security clearance was affirmed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's financial issues were ongoing and unresolved.
AG ¶ 20(c)notedThe Individual Has Received Counseling
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedThe Individual Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant's plan to pay debts within five years was insufficient to mitigate 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 issuedDec 21, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 26, 2017
Decision dateFeb 5, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Consideration of New Evidence Not Permitted on Appeal
Importance of Demonstrating Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Financial Delinquencies.

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 who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's evaluation of the evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge did not commit harmful error and that the decision was sustainable on the record, affirming the denial of the security clearance.

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 Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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 failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record and failed to establish the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 16-03378.a1 DATE: 02/05/2018 DATE: February 5, 2018 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-03378

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 December 21, 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 October 26, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Mark Harvey 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 unfavorable decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The SOR alleged nine delinquent debts, including a student loan placed for collection and a Federal tax lien. The Judge noted Applicant planned to pay all of his delinquent debts within five years. He found in favor of Applicant on some debts and against him on others for which Applicant provided no documentation of making payments. In his appeal brief, Applicant states that, shortly after the hearing, he and his wife experienced a house fire that destroyed their possessions and essentially left them homeless. This resulted in him using money earmarked to resolve his financial problems for temporary lodging and other expenses. Although tragic, this information constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant contends that the Judge did not take into consideration his “whole body of work” in denying him a clearance. The Judge, however, noted that Applicant has served the Federal Government for 40 years, including about seven years of military service, about seven years of Federal civilian service, and many years as an employee of Federal contractors. Applicant has failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-00844 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2017). The balance of Applicant’s arguments amounts to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. His arguments, however, are not sufficient to establish that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14- 06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016). Applicant has not established that the Judge committed harmful error. 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board