CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-01791.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-01791.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-01791.a1

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

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple delinquent debts. The disqualifying condition F.3 was raised, citing a $5,000 judgment, a $25,600 tax lien, and a $4,000 collection account.

The judge found no evidence that the applicant had taken responsible action to address these debts, noting specifically that payment agreements with the IRS had failed. The applicant's assertions of financial difficulties were deemed insufficient to demonstrate good faith efforts toward resolving his outstanding obligations.

The appeal board upheld the denial, concluding that the applicant failed to show responsible action regarding his debts and did not successfully rebut the presumption that the judge had considered all presented evidence. The security clearance was therefore denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as paying taxes when due, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information.”
— ISCR Case No. 17-01256 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 3, 2018)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 10, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 21, 2018
Decision dateSep 13, 2018

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Failure to Demonstrate Good Faith Efforts to Resolve Debts
Upholding of Adverse Decisions Based on Financial Considerations

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's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJennifer Goldstein — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

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.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance. The applicant's arguments did not demonstrate that the Judge acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

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
James E. Moody
Charles C. Hale

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 describes his difficulties in working out a repayment plan with the IRS; asserts that his problems were not due to irresponsibility; and notes that his credit reports do not show any additional financial delinquencies. He also cites to his character evidence. Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record or to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-01791.a1 DATE: 09/13/2018 DATE: September 13, 2018 In Re: --------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-01791

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 August 10, 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 June 21, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Jennifer Goldstein denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. 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 lists several delinquent debts. The ones that the Judge found against him were a $5,000 judgment owed to a bank, a Federal tax lien in the amount of about $25,600, and a collection account for a little over $4,000 resulting from an automobile repossession. Applicant speculates that the judgment in favor of the bank was for a credit card. He has never paid it, and it is unresolved. The tax lien resulted from Applicant’s having failed to ensure that the correct amounts were withheld from his pay. Applicant entered into installment agreements at various times but they were cancelled due to nonpayment. In the summer of 2017 Applicant hired a lawyer to assist him in resolving his tax problems. The firm requested a payment agreement with the IRS but as of the close of the record one had not been approved. Applicant has not been able to reach an agreement with the creditor concerning the automobile repossession. Applicant attributed his financial problems to the economic downturn of a few years ago as well as to a reduction in the hours he was allowed to work, resulting in a diminution of pay. His wife also experienced unemployment from early 2014 until early 2016. The Judge acknowledged that Applicant’s financial problems were affected by circumstances outside his control, such as a loss of income. However, she concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to his debts. Although Applicant has contacted a law firm to resolve his tax liability, she noted that there is no evidence that any payments have been received. She stated that there is no evidence that he is making a good-faith effort to pay his creditors.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief cites to matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Regarding matters that are properly before us, Applicant describes his difficulties in working out a repayment plan with the IRS; asserts that his problems were not due to irresponsibility; and notes that his credit reports do not show any additional financial delinquencies. He also cites to his character evidence. Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record or 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. 17-02391 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 7, 2018). The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as paying taxes when due, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-01256 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 3, 2018). 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board