CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-02294.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-02294.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-02294.a1

May 23, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, a retired military and federal employee, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. The applicant had two judgments totaling approximately $35,000 and additional past-due accounts amounting to about $4,000, bringing the total debt to around $39,000.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate responsible financial management or provide evidence of debt resolution. The appeal board affirmed the initial decision, concluding that the applicant's financial problems raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

The applicant's arguments on appeal were deemed insufficient to prove that the judge's decision was arbitrary or contrary to law. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.”
— ISCR Case No. 15-00650 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 27, 2016)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 10, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 5, 2018
Decision dateMay 23, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Responsible Financial Management
Disagreement with Judge's Weighing of Evidence Does Not Constitute Grounds for Appeal

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 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 weighing of evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCandace Le’i Garcia — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

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 disagreement with the Judge's weighing of the evidence did not constitute a harmful error.

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
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 arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-02294.a1 DATE: 05/23/2018 DATE: May 23, 2018 In Re: --------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-02294

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 July 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 decision on the written record. On March 5, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Candace Le’i Garcia 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 retired from the U.S. military after 20 years of service and retired again from the Federal Government after 18 years of public service. Since then, he has experienced periods of unemployment, including since 2014. The SOR alleged that Applicant had two judgments totaling about $35,000 and two past-due consumer accounts totaling about $4,000. Credit reports verify these debts. He stated he was in the process of disputing one debt, but the documents he provided had a different account number than the alleged debt. He stated that he communicated with the other creditors and intended to enroll those debts in a debt relief program once he obtained employment. While Applicant’s periods of employment constitute conditions beyond his control, he failed to show that he acted responsibly under the circumstances. He did not provide documentation to show that he paid or otherwise resolved the alleged debts. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that his financial problems are unlikely to recur, and they continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.

DISCUSSION

In his appeal brief, Applicant states that he paid his debts in a timely manner while he was employed. He argues that his unemployment caused his financial problems and that he has not disregarded his debts, noting that he contacted the creditors and explained his situation to them. He also notes that the lack of a security clearance has hindered him in obtaining a job. He further argues that, over the course of his 40-year career, he has been known for honesty and integrity. Applicant arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00650 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 27, 2016). 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