CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-02394.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-02394.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-02394.a1

May 16, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved delinquent debts and a failure to file federal income tax returns for multiple years. The judge identified five delinquent debts and noted the applicant had not filed federal income tax returns from 2012 to 2016.

The denial was based on a lack of evidence demonstrating payments towards the outstanding debts and no persuasive explanation for the tax filing deficiencies. These issues raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 19.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant did not demonstrate harmful errors in the judge's findings. The board found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns related to her financial considerations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

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 3, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 15, 2018
Decision dateMay 16, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Security Concerns
Consideration of Non-alleged Debts for Assessing Credibility and Mitigation

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 challenged the Judge's findings and conclusions, but the Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful errors in the Judge's assessment.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — 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 contends 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 findings of fact and conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful errors in the Judge's decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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 contends that the SOR contained incorrect information that led to inaccuracies in the Judge’s decision and challenges a number of the Judge’s findings of fact. These and her other challenges are not sufficient to establish that the Judge committed any harmful errors in his findings of fact or conclusions. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-02394.a1 DATE: 05/16/2018 DATE: May 16, 2018 In Re: --------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-02394

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 3, 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 February 15, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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 Conclusions The SOR contains 13 allegations. The Judge found against Applicant on five delinquent debts and on an allegation that she failed to file her Federal income tax returns for 2012-2016 as required. Regarding the delinquent debts, the Judge found that Applicant enrolled in a rehabilitation program for two student loans a week after the hearing and noted a lack of evidence of payments towards the other debts. The Judge concluded that Applicant did not act responsibly regarding her unpaid debts and that she offered no persuasive explanation for her tax filing deficiencies.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends that the SOR contained incorrect information that led to inaccuracies in the Judge’s decision and challenges a number of the Judge’s findings of fact. As examples of those challenges, she argues: (1) There was an error in the amount of her and her husband’s monthly income on an IRS form that she offered into evidence and the Judge made a finding based on that incorrect information; and (2) The SOR incorrectly alleged that she had a credit card debt that was charged off when a recent credit report reflected the debt was a collection account and indicated a recent payment was made on that account. These and her other challenges are not sufficient to establish that the Judge committed any harmful errors in his findings of fact or conclusions. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-01329 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 11, 2018) (An error is harmless if it did not likely affect the outcome of the case). In this regard, we note that her challenges do not establish that the Judge erred in his foremost conclusion that Applicant failed to present sufficient evidence to mitigate all of the alleged security concerns. In the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant and her husband owed the IRS about $13,000 for 2016. This past-due tax debt was not alleged in the SOR, and Applicant claims it had an undue influence on the Judge’s decision. In discussing this debt, however, the Judge cited to ISCR Case No. 03-20327 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2006) for the proposition that non-alleged debts can be considered for limited purposes such as in assessing an applicant’s credibility; in evaluating evidence of extenuation, mitigation, or changed circumstances; in considering whether an applicant demonstrated successful rehabilitation; and in applying the whole-person concept. Decision at 8, n.4. Applicant has not shown that the Judge considered the non-alleged debt for any impermissible purpose. We further note that Applicant’s appeal brief contains information that was not provided to the Judge for consideration. Such information constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Her other arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. Those arguments, however, 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). 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