CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-03905.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-03905.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03905.a1

May 25, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance primarily due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The central issue was an unresolved student loan debt totaling approximately $60,000. Disqualifying condition F3 was raised, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations.

While the applicant acknowledged personal financial difficulties, the Board found insufficient evidence of mitigation. Specifically, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the student loan was under control, and his claims regarding the lender's uncooperativeness were not supported by the record. Furthermore, the applicant did not begin to address his debts until after receiving the Statement of Reasons (SOR).

Although mitigating conditions F2 and F3 were considered, the lack of clear and timely action to resolve the significant student loan debt ultimately led to the denial of the security clearance, with the Board affirming the Judge's decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F2appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
F3rejectedThe Person Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant did not demonstrate sufficient efforts to resolve the student loan debt.

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 7, 2017
Answer filedFeb 23, 2017
Hearing held—Decision made on written record.
Decision dateMay 25, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Insufficient Mitigation for Unresolved Student Loan Debt
Importance of National Security 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, particularly regarding a student loan. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the material findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the Applicant's claims did not warrant a reversal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline 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 material findings regarding the student loan were based on substantial evidence and that the Judge's decision was sustainable on the record. The Applicant's arguments did not demonstrate that the Judge's weighing of the evidence was arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

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 F DIGEST: The Board concludes the Judge’s material findings regarding the student loan are based on substantial evidence, or constitute reasonable characterizations or inferences that could be drawn from the record. Applicant’s contention on appeal that the lender was not interested in working with him on the student loans as far back as 2014 is not supported by the record evidence. The Judge correctly found that Applicant stated in his SOR Answer and FORM Response that he was working with the lender to resolve the debt. His FORM Response indicated that he entered into a monthly repayment plan with the lender. It was only after the Judge asked Applicant to provide documentation of his continuing payments under that plan that he stated he was having difficulty in dealing with the lender. The Judge’s material findings of security concern are sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-03905.a1 DATE: 05/25/2018 DATE: May 25, 2018 In Re: --------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-03905

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 7, 2017, 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 decision on the written record. On February 23, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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 of Fact In 2010, Applicant obtained his current job after experiencing almost two years of unemployment. He divorced in 2012 and married again in 2016. He attributed his delinquent debts to his divorce, his ex-wife’s addiction, and her failure to pay her debts as provided in their marital settlement agreement. The SOR alleged five delinquent debts totaling about $100,000, including a student loan charged off for about $60,000 in 2012. The Judge found against Applicant on the student loan debt and in favor of him on the other debts. In his Answer to the SOR in February 2017, Applicant stated he was working with an account representative on a plan to resolve the student loan and intended to use his tax refund to pay it. In responding to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) in April 2017, he provided copies of three checks totaling $800 that represented payments made over the phone. He was told he could settle the student loan for 33% but did not have money available to do so. He intended to continue to making payments. In early 2018, Applicant responded to the Judge’s inquiry about whether he had additional documentation of payments on the student loan. Applicant stated the creditor would allow him to make payments on this charged-off debt, but would not provide him further information about the debt. Applicant stated that he contacted a student loan data system that could not located the debt, and he did not know what else to do. Absent further documentation, such as an IRS form confirming the student loan’s cancellation, it remains unresolved. The Judge’s Analysis Applicant’s divorce and related-financial difficulties were circumstances beyond his control. He did not present clear indications that the student loan is under control. He merits some, but not full, mitigation credit for good-faith efforts to resolve four debts because he did not begin to address them until after he received the SOR.

DISCUSSION

In his appeal brief, Applicant submitted letters of reference that post-date the Judge’s decision. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering such new evidence. Directive E3.1.29. Additionally, we need not address Applicant’s assignments of error regarding SOR allegations that the Judge found in his favor. Applicant is apparently challenging the Judge’s findings of fact regarding the student loan. In the appeal brief, he contends: When finally able to pay on this [student loan] in 2014, I attempted to work with [the lender] to develop a repayment plan; however, the bank was not interested as they stated the loan had already been written off as a loss. In my correspondence for periodic review and subsequent submission, I made it clear the lender . . . would not accept a payment plan from me, nor would the bank representative(s) share account information with me, instead they reported they had no account information matching my loan. I found it impossible to manage and resolve this loan debt when the bank itself was not willing or interested in working with me to develop a reasonable re-payment plan. I request that further consideration be made regarding the reluctance of [the lender] to work with me to resolve my debt, and acknowledge my continued attempts to do so.1 After reviewing the record, the Board concludes the Judge’s material findings regarding the student loan are based on substantial evidence, or constitute reasonable characterizations or inferences that could be drawn from the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014). Applicant’s contention on appeal that the lender was not interested in working with him on the student loans as far back as 2014 is not supported by the record evidence. The Judge correctly found that Applicant stated in his SOR Answer and FORM Response that he was working with the lender to resolve the debt. His FORM Response indicated that he entered into a monthly repayment plan with the lender. It was only after the Judge asked Applicant to provide documentation of his continuing payments under that plan that he stated he was having difficulty in dealing with the lender. The Judge’s material findings of security concern are sustainable. In his appeal brief, Applicant highlights his resolution of four of the delinquent debts, explains the reasons for his financial problems, and describes his efforts to resolve the student loan. These arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence and are insufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016). 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.” 1 Appeal Brief at 2.

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