CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-01659.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-01659.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-01659.a1

Apr 24, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to ten delinquent student loans totaling over $119,000. The applicant admitted to the allegations, which raised Disqualifying Condition F.3.

Despite the application of Mitigating Conditions F.2 and F.3, the judge found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation demonstrating consistent payments or control over her financial issues. This led to the conclusion that her financial problems posed an unacceptable security risk.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the judge's decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge found that the applicant did not act responsibly under the circumstances.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant did not provide evidence of effective financial counseling.

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 30, 2017
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJan 26, 2018
Decision dateApr 24, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Control Leading to Security Risk
Rejection of Mitigating Conditions Related to Financial Counseling and Control

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 seeking a security clearance who was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not challenge the Judge's material findings but provided a narrative about her financial issues. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert J. Kilmartin — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not identify any harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision and concluded that the decision was sustainable on the record. The Judge articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance based on the evidence presented.

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: Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s material findings or conclusions. Rather, she provides a narrative statement explaining the reasons for her financial problems and discussing her efforts to resolve them. To the extent that she is arguing that the Judge mis- weighed the evidence, her arguments are not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-01659.a1 DATE: 04/24/2018 DATE: April 24, 2018 In Re: ------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-01659

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 30, 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 January 26, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin 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 ten delinquent student loans and four other delinquent debts. In her response to the SOR, Applicant admitted the student loan allegations totaling over $119,000. The Judge found against Applicant on the student loans and one other small debt. He found in favor of Applicant on the remaining three allegations. The Judge noted that Applicant had entered into a repayment agreement for her student loans in July 2017, which was about a month and a half after the issuance of the SOR. In his analysis, the Judge concluded that Applicant produced no documentation to convince him that she was making consistent payments on the delinquent student loans. He also indicated that he could not conclude that she acted responsibly under the circumstances, that her financial problems were under control, or that such problems were unlikely to recur. In her appeal brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s material findings or conclusions. Rather, she provides a narrative statement explaining the reasons for her financial problems and discussing her efforts to resolve them. To the extent that she is arguing that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence, her arguments are not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016). Applicant also attached documents to her brief that post-date the Judge’s decision. Those documents are not part of the record and constitute new evidence that the Board may not consider. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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