CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-01409.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-01409.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-01409.a1

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

Summary

A 48-year-old defense contractor and military retiree was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant admitted to five delinquent debts totaling approximately $12,000, which included a significant debt stemming from an automobile repossession. These issues raised disqualifying condition F.1.

Despite having over two months to address these concerns, the applicant failed to provide evidence of efforts to settle the delinquent debts. Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate that future financial problems were unlikely, which was a critical factor in the decision.

Ultimately, the appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the financial security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial 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 issuedMay 23, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 1, 2018
Decision dateOct 19, 2018

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Likelihood of Future Financial Stability
Standard for Granting Clearance Based on 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 a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge erred in findings and that the decision was arbitrary. The Board affirmed the adverse decision, finding no harmful error that would change the outcome.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge erred in his findings of fact.
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 errors regarding detailed findings were harmless and did not affect the outcome due to other unresolved debts. The Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not 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

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: Even though the Judge may have erred in not providing more detailed findings as well as and a more extensive analysis about the medical debts, such errors were harmless because they did not likely affect the outcome of the case in light of the other unresolved debts. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-01409.a1 DATE: 10/19/2018 DATE: October 19, 2018 In Re: ------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-01409

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 23, 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 August 1, 2018, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola 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 11 delinquent debts. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on six of the alleged debts and against him on the remaining five debts. The Judge’s favorable SOR findings have not been raised as an issue on appeal and are not discussed further below. Applicant raised the following issues in his appeal: whether the Judge erred in his findings of fact and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm the adverse decision. The Judge’s Finding of Fact and Analysis Applicant is a 48-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He retired from the military after 20 years of active duty. His wife handles their finances and testified on his behalf. Applicant admitted five past-due debts totaling about $12,000. One of those debts for about $10,300 arose from an automobile repossession. His wife stated that they would address the delinquent debts but, despite having more than two months to do so, they submitted no evidence to show that they had done anything to settle them. Applicant’s financial problems are ongoing. Although he has addressed other debts, he has not demonstrated that future financial problems are unlikely. He failed to mitigate the financial security concerns.

DISCUSSION

In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that he paid two of the debts and, in support of these claims, references a letter and a receipt from the creditors that are not contained in the record and that post-date the closing of the record.1 He also states in his brief that he and his wife are in the process of attempting to settle the debt arising from the repossessed vehicle. These contentions constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant further contends that he does not recall admitting two medical debts that total about $922 and states that he was covered by military medical insurance. Applicant’s SOR response reflects that he admitted these debts, notes these debts are no longer listed on his credit report, and indicates he would submit any documentation regarding the debts that he could acquire. At the 1 In the decision, the Judge noted the record of the proceeding was left open until November 30, 2017. The documents that Applicant claims show the two debts were paid are supposedly dated December 27, 2017, and August 18, 2018. hearing, his wife testified that she did not know how these medical debts arose and that her Tricare representative could not find anything about them. The Judge asked at the hearing whether a statement could be provided from the Tricare representative who looked into these debts. No such statement is in the record. In the appeal brief, Applicant references a letter from the military, which post-dates the close of the record, indicating there is no record of this debt. Even though the Judge may have erred in not providing more detailed findings as well as and a more extensive analysis about the medical debts, such errors were harmless because they did not likely affect the outcome of the case in light of the other unresolved debts. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-15184 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2013). Applicant also argues that he has mitigated the security concerns arising from his delinquent debts. In doing so, he highlights his military record of 20 years, discusses the reasons for his financial problems, and argues he is adhering to good-faith efforts to repay his overdue creditors. However, the presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00650 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 27, 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.”

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