CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-01492.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-01492.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-01492.a1

Apr 30, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 19 delinquent debts totaling approximately $15,000. The applicant admitted to most of these debts and had initiated a debt management program.

However, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial responsibility to mitigate the concerns raised by the outstanding debts. The judge found no fully applicable mitigating conditions in the applicant's situation.

Consequently, the applicant's appeal was denied, and the security clearance was not granted.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial 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 26, 2017
Answer filed—Applicant represented herself.
Hearing heldFeb 28, 2018
Decision dateApr 30, 2018

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of New Evidence on Appeal Decisions
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 financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant argued that she was making payments on a debt management program, but the Board affirmed the denial, stating that the new evidence could not be considered and that the applicant did not establish any harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGregg A. Cervi — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that she is making payments on the debt management program.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's findings or conclusions.

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
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: In her appeal brief, Applicant contends that she is making payments on the debt management program which began after she submitted her response to the FORM and provided proof of payments toward the debt management program. The proof of those payments constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board may not consider. She also indicated that maintaining a security clearance is important to achieving her career goals. The Directive does not allow us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-01492.a1 DATE: 04/30/2018 DATE: April 30, 2018 In Re: ---------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-01492

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 26, 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 28, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi 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 19 delinquent debts totaling about $15,000. These included student loans, credit cards, and medical accounts. With the exception of two debts that she was unable to identify, Applicant admitted the SOR debts. Periods of unemployment and medical problems contributed to her financial delinquencies. In responding to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), she provided proof of payments on two SOR debts. In August 2017, she initiated a debt management program, but provided no proof of payments towards that program. The Judge determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Applicant had the ability to meet her current financial obligations or show that she took responsible action to resolve her debts. The Judge concluded no mitigating condition was fully applicable. In her appeal brief, Applicant contends that she is making payments on the debt management program. She noted that those payments did not begin until after she submitted her response to the FORM and provided proof of payments toward the debt management program. The proof of those payments constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board may not consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.1.29.1 She also indicated that maintaining a security clearance is important to achieving her career goals. The Directive does not allow us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015). Applicant’s appeal brief fails to establish the Judge committed any harmful error. 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 To the extent that Applicant contends that she was denied the opportunity to present evidence, our review of the record shows that she was neither denied the opportunity to present evidence nor misled about her chance to do so. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-02941 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2017).

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