CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-02885.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-02885.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-02885.a1

Aug 22, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 32-year-old male applicant with a military background was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from 21 delinquent debts totaling approximately $40,000, which raised a disqualifying condition under F.3.

The judge determined that the applicant had not taken significant steps to resolve these debts, including failing to contact many of his creditors. Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate that he had filed for bankruptcy or sought financial counseling to address his financial difficulties.

The appeal board upheld the denial, concluding that the applicant had not mitigated the financial concerns. The lack of demonstrated effort to resolve the substantial delinquent debt contributed to the adverse security clearance decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

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 issuedSep 7, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 15, 2018
Decision dateAug 22, 2018

Cite For

Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Failure to Demonstrate Financial Responsibility
Impact of Delinquent Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 regarding financial counseling and the weighing of evidence related to his debts. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

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

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues that the Judge erred in weighing the evidence regarding his debts.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge's findings were arbitrary and capricious.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not identify any harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance based on the evidence presented.

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 also challenges the Judge’s finding that he did not receive financial counseling. He contends that financial counseling is mandatory to file bankruptcy. However, we find no reason to disturb the Judge’s finding about financial counseling. By the close of the record, Applicant had not established that he filed bankruptcy. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-02885.a1 DATE: 08/22/2018 DATE: August 22, 2018 In Re: -------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-02885

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 September 7, 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 May 15, 2018, after the hearing, 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, who is 32 years old, has been working for his current employer since late 2015. After serving in the military for about eight years, he was involuntarily discharged for failure to meet physical fitness standards. He received about $14,000 in severance pay and was then unemployed for about 13 months. His wife is employed and their combined monthly income is between $3,500 to $4,000. Applicant’s wife and son have suffered medical problems that have resulted in treatment expenses. He is pursuing an associate’s degree and, when in school, receives a monthly GI Bill housing stipend of about $1,200. The SOR alleged that Applicant has 21 delinquent debts totaling about $40,000. These debts are reflected on credit reports from 2016 and 2017. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on two Federal debts that were satisfied through the withholding of his tax refunds. The Judge found against Applicant on the remaining debts, noting that Applicant had not contacted many of the creditors or taken other significant steps to resolve the debts. After the issuance of the SOR, Applicant hired an attorney to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The attorney will not file the bankruptcy petition until her fee is paid. Applicant hopes to pay the fee within two months. Applicant’s brief includes matters that are not contained in the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In the appeal brief, Applicant claims “there is factual/legal error” involving two specific debts. Appeal Brief at 1. Because one of those is a Federal tax debt for which the Judge found in favor of Applicant, we need not address that assignment of error. The other debt is a $430 cable- service debt. In his findings, the Judge noted that Applicant denied the cable-service debt, reestablished an account with the provider after a move, is current with the provider, but did not contact the provider to inquire about or dispute the debt. Even if the Judge may have erred in his findings and conclusions about the cable-service debt, it was harmless error because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-15184 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2013). Applicant also challenges the Judge’s finding that he did not receive financial counseling. He contends that financial counseling is mandatory to file bankruptcy. However, we find no reason to disturb the Judge’s finding about financial counseling. By the close of the record, Applicant had not established that he filed bankruptcy. The balance of Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016). Applicant also request an extension to present further evidence. We have no authority to grant Applicant a continuance to develop additional favorable evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00151 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 12, 2014). 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