CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-01562.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-01562.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-01562.a1

Mar 13, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance primarily under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), with favorable findings under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The denial stemmed from significant financial judgments against the applicant, totaling approximately $86,000.

While the applicant attributed these financial problems to circumstances beyond his control, he failed to resolve the issues or establish a payment plan for the judgments. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20(a) were raised, and although mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20(c) were applied, they were deemed insufficient to overcome the financial concerns.

The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, emphasizing the necessity of national security considerations in light of the unresolved financial obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's financial issues were not resolved, and he did not demonstrate a plan to address them.

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 24, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 8, 2017
Decision dateMar 13, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Judgments Under Guideline F
Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Concerns Due to Lack of Payment Plans
Emphasis on National Security Considerations in Clearance Decisions

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 concerns under Guideline B and Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge made factual and legal errors, but the Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends the Judge committed factual and legal errors.

Why the Board ruled this way

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

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
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 B; Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant contends the Judge committed factual and legal errors. Some of his arguments are based on representations that are not in that record. Those representations constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-01562.a1 DATE: 03/13/2018 DATE: March 13, 2018 In Re: ---------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-01562

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 24, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and 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 December 8, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge committed factual and legal errors in her decision. Consistent with the following, we affirm the decision. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline B are not discussed further because they have not been raised as an issue on appeal. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant admitted the SOR allegations that he had a judgment entered against him for about $81,000 in 2012 and another entered against him for about $5,000 in 2014. He attributed his financial problems to purchasing a second home in 2006 without first selling his first home. He could not pay both mortgages. He encounter problems with renters of the first home and a bank’s refusal to refinance a loan. He and his wife also lost a child during her pregnancy. His wages were garnished, but no details are contained in the record. Applicant lost the first home in 2008. The judgments are arguably due to circumstances beyond his control, but he has not resolved the large judgment and is not making any payments towards it. He is trying to resolve the other judgment, but there is no payment plan in place to resolve it.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends the Judge committed factual and legal errors. Some of his arguments are based on representations that are not in that record. Those representations constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Based upon our review, the Judge’s material findings “are supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” See, Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. The balance of his arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016). Applicant failed to establish that 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.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED.

Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, 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