CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-03994.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-03994.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03994.a1

Apr 27, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 18 delinquent debts totaling approximately $10,000. The applicant acknowledged these debts, which constituted a disqualifying condition under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 20(a).

While the applicant initiated a repayment plan, the judge determined that his efforts to resolve the debts were insufficient. Specifically, the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a meaningful repayment track record.

Despite the potential application of mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20(c), the lack of demonstrated progress in addressing the significant financial delinquencies led to the denial of the applicant's appeal. The outcome of the decision was a denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's recent hiring of a debt resolution company did not establish a meaningful track record of repayment.

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 10, 2017
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldFeb 20, 2018Decision made by Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson.
Decision dateApr 27, 2018Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Debt Repayment Efforts
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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to unresolved financial issues under Guideline F. The applicant did not challenge the findings or conclusions of the Administrative Judge but requested reconsideration based on his efforts to resolve his debts. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not identify any harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision, which was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

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: Applicant has been telling the Government since 2005, for at least twelve years, that he was working to resolve his indebtedness. Over the years, he obviously did little to nothing towards his delinquent debts. Applicant has not submitted any compelling evidence that he has established a meaningful track record of repayment, or that he had a basis to dispute the legitimacy of any of his delinquent debts. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-03994.a1 DATE: 04/27/2018 DATE: April 27, 2018 In Re: ------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-03994

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 10, 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 a decision on the written record. On February 20, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had 18 delinquent debts totaling about $10,000. In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted each debt. In her analysis, the Judge stated: Applicant has been telling the Government since 2005, for at least twelve years, that he was working to resolve his indebtedness. Over the years, he obviously did little to nothing towards his delinquent debts. In response to the FORM [File of Relevant Material] dated June 2017, Applicant submitted a letter and a Statement of Payment and Records, showing that he has finally hired a debt resolution company to assist him in resolving this indebtedness. It also shows that many of the creditors listed in the SOR are included in the repayment plan. However, it also shows that Applicant recently started the program, as the debt amounts still remain close to what was originally owed. At this point, Applicant has not submitted any compelling evidence that he has established a meaningful track record of repayment, or that he had a basis to dispute the legitimacy of any of his delinquent debts.1 In his appeal brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s material findings or conclusions. In fact, he stated that he does “not question the previous judgment[.]” Appeal Brief at 1. He asks that his case be reconsidered and highlights his efforts to resolve his debts, including his making payments under the debt repayment plan. To the extent that he is arguing that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence, his arguments are not sufficient 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). 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.” 1 Decision at 7.

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