Loading case…

ISCR 17-03049.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2018) · CASE

ISCR Case 17-03049.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-03049.a1

May 15, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial irresponsibility. Disqualifying conditions included the applicant's admission to failing to file taxes and having multiple delinquent debts.

While the applicant presented some evidence of mitigating circumstances, specifically under Guideline F.2, the judge found this insufficient to demonstrate a consistent pattern of responsibility in addressing his financial obligations. The appeal board upheld this decision, emphasizing the applicant's failure to adequately resolve his financial issues.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied because the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to overcome the concerns raised by his unfiled taxes and delinquent debts.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedFailure to File Annual Income Tax Returns
F.3raisedDelinquent Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Temporary and Have Been Resolved or Are Being ResolvedThe judge determined that the applicant did not act responsibly to address his debts or tax filing deficiencies.

Key rule quoted

“A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as filing tax returns and 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. 15-02884 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2018)

Procedural posture

SOR issuedSep 13, 2017
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldFeb 26, 2018
Decision dateMay 15, 2018

Cite for

Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Importance of Fulfilling Legal Obligations for Security Clearance
Standards for Weighing Evidence in Security Clearance Cases

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 decision, finding that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant's arguments did not demonstrate harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCaroline E. Heintzelman denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious. The presence of some mitigating evidence did not outweigh the unfavorable evidence regarding the applicant's financial responsibilities.

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: The Board does not review a case de novo. The favorable evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-03049.a1 DATE: 05/15/2018 DATE: May 15, 2018 In Re: -------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-03049

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 13, 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 February 26, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Caroline E. Heintzelman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge’s Findings and Conclusions The SOR alleged that Applicant had failed to file Federal and state taxes in multiple years and that he had three delinquent debts. Applicant admitted to all of the allegations. In response to the SOR he provided proof he had begun to resolve some of his tax issues and had made payment on at least one of the debts alleged. The Judge determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish Applicant acted responsibly to address his debts or tax filing deficiencies.

DISCUSSION

Applicant states that any difficulties he has had with his finances in the past were due to periods of unemployment, his divorce, and his child custody and support obligations. With his brief he provides the Notice of Emancipation for his oldest child, a payment receipt, and IRS documents.1 He asserts that there is no issue of lack of responsibility on his part. The Board construes these arguments to mean that there were mitigating factors in the case that supported a favorable clearance decision. The Board does not review a case de novo. The favorable evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge's decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03641 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 17, 2015). The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-25157 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 4, 2008). 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. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 2007). 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. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). Applicant's appeal brief essentially argues for an alternate interpretation of the record evidence. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory basis for the decision. A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as filing tax 1 Applicant’s appeal brief contains documents that were not previously submitted to the Judge. Those documents constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board can neither receive nor consider. See, Directive ¶ E3.1.29. returns and 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. 15-02884 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2018). The Judge's 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, Enclosure 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 of the Judge 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