CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-00303.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-00303.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-00303.a1

Jan 29, 2018· Hon. James E. Moody· appeal

Summary

A federal contractor with advanced degrees was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy twice and owed a $60,000 priority claim to the IRS for back taxes.

Despite the applicant's assertions of identity theft and financial hardship, the judge determined there was insufficient evidence to establish financial reliability. The decision highlighted the applicant's lack of a consistent track record in managing financial obligations.

Ultimately, the presence of significant delinquent debts and the repeated bankruptcy filings, coupled with the outstanding IRS claim, led to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

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 issuedMay 8, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 2, 2017
Decision dateJan 29, 2018

Cite For

Financial Reliability Concerns Under Guideline F
Impact of Unresolved Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Demonstrating Financial Management in Relation to National Security

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, citing his financial difficulties and efforts to resolve his debts. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

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.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. 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 reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

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 filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in 2003,. He filed again for Chapter 7 protection in June 2017, and he claimed that all of his SOR debts were addressed in the petition. His bankruptcy filing reveals a $60,000 priority claim in favor of the IRS for back taxes. He also owed money to his state for back taxes, which he paid off through garnishment. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-00303.a1 DATE: 01/29/2018 DATE: January 29, 2018 In Re: -------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-00303

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 May 8, 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 hearing. On November 2, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 Applicant has bachelor’s and master’s degrees and is working on a second bachelor’s. He has been employed as a Federal contractor since late 2015. Applicant’s SOR lists numerous delinquent debts. Applicant testified, and the Judge found, that he had experienced periods of unemployment, which contributed to his financial difficulties. Applicant stated that he had been a victim of identity theft, and his debts were also affected by medical expenses. Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in 2003, although he testified that his debts were not discharged. He filed again for Chapter 7 protection in June 2017, and he claimed that all of his SOR debts were addressed in the petition. Applicant’s delinquent debts include medical expenses, a broken apartment lease, telecommunication services, tuition expenses, etc. His bankruptcy filing reveals a $60,000 priority claim in favor of the IRS for back taxes. He also owed money to his state for back taxes, which he paid off through garnishment. He hired a tax relief firm to assist him in resolving his debt with the IRS. He states that he has submitted an offer in compromise and is awaiting a response from the IRS. Applicant has not had financial counseling but intends to receive it in the future. He has less than $5,000 in savings and no investments. In late 2016, he loaned his girlfriend about $6,000 and she has paid back about $4,800. He traveled to Australia in the summer of 2014, and his girlfriend paid all of the expenses. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge noted that, as of the date of the hearing, Applicant’s debts had not been discharged in bankruptcy. She cited to evidence that Applicant had paid some of his debts, although these were not alleged in the SOR. She also took into account circumstances that were outside Applicant’s control, such as his unemployment and medical expenses. The Judge cited to Applicant’s claims to have been a victim of identity theft, acknowledging that he had submitted disputes to the credit bureaus. However, she also noted that Applicant had not filed a police report upon discovery of the purported theft. Although she addressed some of Applicant’s debts in his favor, the Judge concluded that he had not provided evidence that others had been resolved. Although Applicant’s bankruptcy petition is a legal means of resolving debts, she noted that such a procedure is not equivalent to actually paying debts when due. In the whole person analysis, the Judge noted Applicant’s bankruptcy petition, which, she stated, will likely provide him with debt relief. She stated that some of Applicant’s financial decisions raise questions about his ability to manage his finances and that Applicant has not demonstrated a track record of financial reliability.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends that the Judge did not give proper consideration to his having paid many of his debts. He cites to his unemployment and his medical problems, which were beyond his control. He also cites to evidence that he has hired a firm to assist him in resolving his tax debt. He notes that he has never gotten into trouble with the law and that he is going back to school to improve his job skills. He states that he has taken a financial course, contrary to the Judge’s finding. He argues that without a clearance he will not be able to continue his employment. We have considered Applicant’s brief in light of the record evidence as a whole. The Judge made findings about the things that Applicant has cited in his brief. His argument consists in essence of a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. He has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-00257 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2017). We note Applicant’s argument that his continued employment is dependent on his receiving a clearance. However, the Directive does not permit us to consider the impact that an unfavorable decision might have upon an applicant. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-01787 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2017). Applicant claims that he has received financial counseling. The record does not contain evidence that he has received counseling, although that could be inferred from his ongoing bankruptcy procedure. Even if the Judge erred, however, it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. Therefore, any error in this regard in harmless. See, e.g., ISCR Case No.15-05047 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 8, 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