Loading case…

ISCR 17-03391: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2018) · CASE

ISCR Case 17-03391denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-03391

Jul 30, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A government contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 24 delinquent debts. These included 22 student loans totaling approximately $174,000, a home equity loan of about $33,000, and credit card debt around $20,000. The applicant admitted to these allegations, which raised Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20(a).

While the applicant attributed his financial difficulties to his wife's unemployment and initiated some payment plans, the judge found these actions insufficient. Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 20(d) and AG ¶ 20(c) were considered but ultimately not applied.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate a meaningful track record of regular and timely payments, and a lack of responsible financial management under the circumstances. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not establish a meaningful track record of regular and timely payments.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's financial issues were not sufficiently mitigated by his claims of wife’s unemployment.

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 issuedOct 12, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateJul 30, 2018

Cite for

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Multiple Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Responsible Financial Management Leading to Unfavorable Decision
Impact of Personal Circumstances on Financial Responsibility Assessments 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 involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant had 24 delinquent debts, including significant student loans. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis of the evidence presented.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowGina L. Marine denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge properly considered the totality of the evidence in her whole-person analysis. The Applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's decision.

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

Michael Ra’anan (Chair)
James F. Duffy
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 has 24 delinquent debts. These include 22 student loans totaling about $174,000, a home equity loan for about $33,000, and a credit card debt for about $20,000. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-03391 DATE: 07/30/2018 DATE: July 30, 2018 In Re: ------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-03391

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Ryan C. Nerney, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On October 12, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decisionCsecurity 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 March 27, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gina L. Marine 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 decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Finding of Fact The SOR alleges that Applicant has 24 delinquent debts. These include 22 student loans totaling about $174,000, a home equity loan for about $33,000, and a credit card debt for about $20,000. He admitted each SOR allegation. He attributed his financial problems to his wife's unspecified periods of unemployment and underemployment beginning in 2012. He vacationed abroad for five days in both 2014 and 2015. In August 2017, Applicant's credit card debt was charged off, and he later received an IRS 1099-C Form canceling that debt. In September 2017, Applicant proposed a monthly payment plan for his 6 state student loans. In October 2017, a state agency agreed to accept monthly payments of $300 to resolve them. He made one payment in October 2017. During October 2017, Applicant also settled the home-equity loan for about $7,600, which came from the proceeds of a 401(k) cash- out. In that month, he further initiated the process of rehabilitating his 16 Federal student loans. In January and February 2018, he made monthly payments of $205 under that rehabilitation program. He has a non-alleged private student loan for about $25,000 and indicated that he would make arrangements to pay that account when he was able. Additionally, he claimed he paid other debts, including auto loans, but did not provide details or corroborating documents. The Judge's Analysis The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the home-equity loan that was settled and the credit card debt that was canceled. She found against him on the student loans. While Applicant received credit for initiating action to resolve his student loans, Ahe has not established a meaningful track record of regular and timely payments pursuant to those agreements.@ Decision at 6. He also did not establish that he has acted responsibly under the circumstances.

DISCUSSION

Applicant argues that the Judge did not consider and properly weigh all the evidence. He cites to such matters as his payment plans for the student loans, his wife's unemployment, and his work as a Government contractor for a number of years without any security violations. However, the Judge made findings about most of those matters. Applicant’s arguments are neither sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor 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. 17-00257 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2017). We give due consideration to the Hearing Office case that Applicant cited, but it is neither binding precedent on the Appeal Board nor sufficient to undermine the Judge's decision. Id. Additionally, the Judge complied with the requirements of the Directive in her whole-person analysis by considering the totality of the evidence in reaching her decision. 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. AThe 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): AAny 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 F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board