CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-00683.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-00683.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-00683.a1

Oct 19, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant admitted to six delinquent debts totaling approximately $20,000.

The judge determined that these debts were either unresolved or lacked sufficient proof of payment. Despite the applicant's assertions of improved financial circumstances, the charged-off debts were still considered an ongoing financial problem.

The appeal board upheld the denial, finding the applicant's claims unpersuasive. The decision emphasized that national security considerations are paramount in clearance determinations, leading to the denial of the applicant's security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedApr 3, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 24, 2018
Decision dateOct 19, 2018

Cite For

Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Impact of Charged-off Debts on Security Clearance
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 was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant argued that the Judge did not consider his current financial situation adequately. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge failed to take into account his current financial situation.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was sustainable on the record and that the Applicant did not identify any harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence review

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Charles C. Hale
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 not identified any harmful error in the Judge’s decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-00683.a1 DATE: 10/19/2018 DATE: October 19, 2018 In Re: -------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-00683

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 April 3, 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 July 24, 2018, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant has been working for a defense contractor since 2012. The SOR alleged six delinquent debts totaling about $20,000. Applicant admitted each of the delinquent debts. In analyzing the evidence, the Judge concluded that the debts were either unresolved or there is a lack of proof of payments towards them. In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that Judge failed to take into account his current financial situation. He states that a credit report he provided in his post-hearing submission reflects some of the debts have been charged off and no longer appear on his credit report, which leaves only two unresolved debts, i.e., a mortgage in foreclosure and a credit union debt.1 He argues such evidence shows his financial situation is slowly being resolved and demonstrates he is sufficiently addressing the security concerns. His argument is unpersuasive. A Judge could reasonably conclude that charged-off debts remain an ongoing financial problem. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06- 23894 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 6, 2008).2 Moreover, the fact that a debt no longer appears on a credit report does not establish any meaningful evidence as to the disposition of the debt. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03612 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 25, 2015). 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 Applicant’s statement fails to account for an unresolved state tax debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a. 2 The Board has previously noted that a creditor’s choice to charge off a debt for accounting purposes does not affect the debtor’s obligation to the creditor. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-02760 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2016) and ISCR Case No. 09-01175 at 2, n.1 (App. Bd. May 11, 2010).

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board