CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-03146.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-03146.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-03146.a1

Jul 31, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) for an applicant who is a veteran and formerly self-employed. The denial was based on multiple unresolved financial issues, including delinquent debts and a home foreclosure.

Specifically, the applicant had several outstanding debts, such as a home foreclosure and state tax liens, which remained unresolved. The applicant failed to provide adequate evidence demonstrating responsible action to address these financial obligations.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, rejecting the applicant's argument that the debts originated years ago, emphasizing that unresolved debts constitute a continuing security concern. The board concluded that the applicant had not mitigated the disqualifying conditions under Guideline F, specifically AG ¶ 20(a).

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“unresolved debts are a continuing course of conduct”
— ISCR Case No. 15-08779 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 3, 2017)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 29, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateJul 31, 2018

Cite For

Continuing Concern of Unresolved Debts Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Responsible Action Regarding Financial Obligations
The Standard for Security Clearance Decisions Being Consistent with 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 involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to unresolved financial issues under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions regarding the applicant's financial conduct.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — 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 contends that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no reason to disturb the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s financial problems raise a security concern. The Judge articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
Charles C. Hale

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 his financial problems do not raise a security concern because they originated several years in the past. However, unresolved debts are a continuing course of conduct. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-03146.a1 DATE: 07/31/2018 DATE: July 31, 2018 In Re: -------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-03146

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 29, 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).1 Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On March 14, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 served in the military from 1984 until his honorable discharge in 1988. He was self-employed from 2014 until 2016, when he began working for a Federal contractor. He advised that he put a lot of time and money into his effort to start up a business, but his promised funding did not materialize. Applicant’s SOR contains numerous delinquent debts, including a home foreclosure, a utility bill, and two state tax liens. Although the Judge cited to Applicant’s claims either that the debts were not owed, were less than the amounts alleged, or were resolved, she found that he had not provided documentary corroboration. The Judge noted that Applicant’s business failure affected his debts. However, she concluded that he had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to his debts. She stated that he has not provided sufficient information that he is resolving his debts, nor did he provide evidence in support of his claim that several of the alleged debts are in fact not owed. The Judge acknowledged Applicant’s status as a veteran but reiterated her conclusion that he had not submitted sufficient evidence that he is resolving his financial problems.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief includes matters from outside the record, including documents that post- date the Decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant contends that his financial problems do not raise a security concern because they originated several years in the past. However, unresolved debts are a continuing course of conduct. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08779 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 3, 2017). Debts that have remained unresolved over a course of years can properly be characterized as a history of delinquent debt sufficient to raise concerns under Guideline F. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04435 at 4 (App. Bd. Mar. 13, 2017). We find no reason to disturb the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s financial problems raise a security concern. The balance of Applicant’s appeal is, in effect, a challenge to the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. Applicant’s arguments are not enough 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. 17-01181 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 30, 2018). 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 In the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Department Counsel amended the SOR to include a state tax lien in addition to one already contained in the SOR.