CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-01530.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-01530.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-01530.a1

deniedJun 6, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to numerous unresolved delinquent debts. The appeal board affirmed this denial, citing the applicant's failure to demonstrate responsible action toward resolving his financial obligations.

Key issues included a significant $21,000 deficiency from a vehicle repossession and multiple other delinquent debts. By the close of the record, only two debts, totaling $418, had been resolved. The applicant also failed to provide evidence supporting his denial of certain debts and did not follow through on commitments to resolve them.

While the applicant claimed financial hardship, the board found insufficient evidence of mitigating circumstances under AG ¶ 20(c) to overcome the disqualifying conditions raised under AG ¶ 20(a). Consequently, the trustworthiness designation was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had numerous delinquent debts, including a $21,000 deficiency from a vehicle repossession.
Only two of the debts were resolved by the close of the record, totaling $418.
The applicant did not provide evidence supporting the denial of certain debts and failed to follow through on his commitment to resolve them.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not show responsible action in regard to his debts despite circumstances beyond his control.

Key Rule Quoted

“such a determination 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 issuedJun 16, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 6, 2018
Decision dateJun 6, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Failure to Demonstrate Responsible Action in Resolving Debts
Standard for Trustworthiness Determinations Consistent with 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.

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 argues that the Judge did not give him time to effectuate his plan. However, in 2015 Applicant committed to resolve his delinquent debts. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-01530.a1 DATE: 06/06/2018 DATE: June 6, 2018 In Re: -------------------------

Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 17-01530

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Patrick Cox, Personal Representative The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a trustworthiness designation. On June 16, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–trustworthiness 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 February 6, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. 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 and Analysis Applicant’s SOR alleges numerous delinquent debts, including $21,000 deficiency resulting from the repossession sale of a vehicle. Other debts, for accounts that have been charged off or are in collection, are for lesser amounts, generally a few hundred dollars. By the close of the record, Applicant had resolved only two of the SOR debts, valued at $288 and $130 respectively. Applicant testified that he is working on resolving them, although he does not have extra income that could be used for this purpose. In 2015, he advised his clearance investigator that he intended to contact his creditors and make payment arrangements. He also stated that he is current on all his monthly expenses. He bought automobiles in 2016 and 2017, with monthly payments of nearly $600 and nearly $900. Applicant attributes his financial problems to his inability to work in January 2014, due to knee surgery and to his wife’s unemployment for the two years preceding mid-2017. Applicant has not shown responsible action in regard to his debts, despite the presence of circumstances beyond his control that affected his financial condition. The Judge noted his assurance to the interviewer that he would begin resolving his debts yet failed to follow through. Applicant did not provide evidence that would support his denial of certain debts. She stated that Applicant has been fully employed since late 2014 but has not addressed his financial delinquencies.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief includes evidence from outside the record, including documents that post- date the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant argues that the Judge did not give him time to effectuate his plan. However, in 2015 Applicant committed to resolve his delinquent debts. The balance of Applicant’s argument is a challenge to the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 12-09387 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016). The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. The standard applicable to trustworthiness cases is that set forth in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) regarding security clearances: such a determination “may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” See, e.g., ADP Case No. 12-04343 at 3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2013). See also Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied.

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: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board