CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-03709.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-03709.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03709.a1

Jul 2, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance primarily due to significant financial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), with an additional concern under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant admitted to approximately $47,000 in delinquent debts.

Despite acknowledging these debts, the applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate their resolution or a concrete plan for repayment. The judge determined that the applicant failed to take timely steps to address his financial issues.

Disqualifying conditions under Guideline F were raised, specifically AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(c), AG ¶ 20(d), AG ¶ 20(e), and AG ¶ 20(f). While mitigating conditions AG ¶ 21(a), AG ¶ 21(b), and AG ¶ 21(c) were considered, they were insufficient to overcome the unresolved financial concerns. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 20(c)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 20(d)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 20(e)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 20(f)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21(a)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not provide evidence of a plan to resolve debts.
AG ¶ 21(b)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's financial issues were not shown to be under control.
AG ¶ 21(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not demonstrate that the debts were resolved.

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 issuedJan 19, 2017
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldMar 27, 2018Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateJul 2, 2018Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Documentation to Demonstrate Resolution of Debts
The Standard for Granting Clearance Is Consistency with 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 an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant argued that he had provided documentation regarding his debts, but the Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBraden M. Murphy — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that he provided supporting documentation for his debts.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision, which was supported by substantial evidence and followed required procedures. The Judge's conclusions were not arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael 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 E; Guideline F DIGEST: The Directive does not authorize a Judge to act as an investigator for either party. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-03709.a1 DATE: 07/02/2018 DATE: July 2, 2018 In Re: --------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-03709

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 January 19, 2017, 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 March 27, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the sole Guideline E allegation and against him on the five Guideline F allegations. Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged that Applicant had two delinquent student loans totaling about $45,600, a judgment filed in 2014 for about $670, and three other debts totaling about $1,200. In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted each debt and submitted no documents concerning the debts. Upon receipt of the case, the Judge reopened the record to provide Applicant the opportunity to submit documentation. In the decision, the Judge addressed the reopening of the record by stating: In response to my order reopening the record, Applicant acknowledged that he had not provided documentation, and said he thought his creditors would send documents to the credit bureaus “to clear the debt from my name.” He indicated that he would contact the creditors for appropriate records. He also said he had recently been “laid off” from one of his company’s job sites, and transferred elsewhere. (AE A)1 In his analysis, the Judge noted that Applicant failed to present documentation showing the satisfaction of specific debts and concluded that insufficient evidence was presented to conclude that his financial issues are unlikely to recur.2 In his Appeal Brief, Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding the he did not provide supporting documentation. He states that he “provided business names and account numbers in the initial package provided to me almost two years ago . . . .” Appeal Brief at 1. We are unable to discern what “initial package” Applicant is referencing. To the extent that he may be arguing the Judge should have investigated the status of his alleged debts, we find no merit in the contention. The Directive does not authorize a Judge to act as an investigator for either party. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-06659 at 5 (App. Bd. Oct. 22, 2012). Applicant also provided documents in his Notice of Appeal and Appeal Brief that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. Those documents constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 Decision at 3. 2 In the analysis, the Judge notes that a government exhibit, a credit report post-dating the SOR, reflected that the student loans were consolidated, placed in a deferment status, and were not past due. Nevertheless, the Judge concluded that Applicant failed to take steps to resolve the student loans in a timely manner and did not set forth any plan to pay them.