CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-02463.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-02463.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-02463.a1

Sep 10, 2018· Hon. Charles C. Hale· appeal

Summary

A military veteran's security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple delinquent debts and insufficient mitigation efforts. Disqualifying condition F.3 was raised, while mitigating conditions F.2 and F.3 were considered.

The applicant's financial issues included a repossessed vehicle and credit card debt. Although payment plans were established after the security clearance hearing, the judge determined these actions were not timely.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate a sufficient and consistent track record of debt resolution, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge noted the applicant's failure to plan for financial emergencies.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Made a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe judge found that the applicant's efforts to set up payment plans were not timely.

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 issuedAug 30, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 11, 2018
Decision dateSep 10, 2018

Cite For

Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Timely Corrective Actions in Financial Matters
The Standard for Granting Security Clearance Related to 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.

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 financial considerations. 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 belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — 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 contended 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 did not err in her decision-making process and that her conclusions were supported by substantial evidence. The Judge provided the Applicant with a fair opportunity to present his case and appropriately weighed the evidence presented.

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

James E. Moody
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: We find no reason to believe that Applicant was denied a fair opportunity to present his case in mitigation. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-02463.a1 DATE: 09/10/2018 DATE: September 10, 2018 In Re: --------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-02463

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 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 hearing. On June 11, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson 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 Applicant began working for his current employer in 2016. He has prior military experience. He underwent a period of unemployment before taking the job that he holds now, during which time he fell behind on his bills. He has acknowledged that he did not plan ahead for such things as a job loss, having no savings. His current job pays less than the previous one. Therefore, it has taken him some time to address his financial problems. Applicant’s SOR lists four delinquent debts, i.e., a repossessed vehicle, a credit card, and a medical account that was alleged twice. After receiving the SOR, Applicant hired a debt consolidation company, which focused on addressing Applicant’s wife’s debts before those incurred by Applicant. After the hearing, Applicant terminated his relationship with this company and decided to get in touch with creditors himself. He states that, as of January 2018, he has set up payment plans with each of his creditors. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge noted Applicant’s unemployment and his failure to have planned for such a financial emergency. She also noted that he cancelled his arrangement with the debt consolidation company. Though commending him for having set up payment plans, the Judge concluded that he could have done so long ago. Accordingly, she concluded that Applicant had not established a track record of debt payment. She concluded that the evidence is not sufficient to mitigate the concerns arising from Applicant’s financial problems.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends that he did not have enough time before the Decision to show that his debts had been resolved. The Judge and Applicant discussed at length the additional evidence he would provide at the close of the hearing. Tr. at 73-77. The Judge gave him an opportunity to present additional documents after the hearing, which Applicant did. We find no reason to believe that Applicant was denied a fair opportunity to present his case in mitigation. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-04472 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 9, 2017) for a description of the due process rights that the Directive affords applicants in DOHA proceedings. The balance of Applicant’s brief is, in effect, a challenge to the way in which the Judge weighed the evidence. However, a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence is not sufficient to establish error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-01181 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 30, 2018). The Judge relied in large measure upon evidence that Applicant was dilatory in setting up payment plans or otherwise attempting to resolve his debts, which is sustainable. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17- 00294 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 8, 2018) (Timing of an applicant’s corrective action is relevant in evaluating an applicant’s case for mitigation). Applicant cites to his unemployment, his military service, and to other matters that are favorable to him. The Judge made findings about many of the things that Applicant has addressed in his brief. Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-02391 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 7, 2018). Applicant notes that his continued employment depends on retaining his clearance. The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact that an adverse decision might have upon an applicant. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-01950 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 7, 2018). The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). The Judge’s adverse 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, 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