CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00621.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-00621.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00621.a1

Oct 23, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A retired military member and federal contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to multiple delinquent debts and a recent bankruptcy filing. The applicant's financial history included several disqualifying conditions, specifically F.3, which addresses an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts.

While the applicant cited mitigating conditions F.2 and F.3, claiming a bankruptcy plan was in progress, the judge found these insufficient. The denial was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate responsible action regarding his debts. Crucially, the bankruptcy plan was filed only after the security clearance hearing, indicating a lack of timely effort to resolve his financial obligations.

Ultimately, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of sustained efforts to address his financial issues, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge acknowledged circumstances beyond the applicant's control but concluded they did not mitigate the financial issues.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Made a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant's bankruptcy plan was not filed until after the hearing, and he showed no sustained efforts at payment.

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 issuedMar 22, 2018
Answer filed—Pro se representation
Hearing heldJul 30, 2018
Decision dateOct 23, 2018Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Responsible Debt Management Under Guideline F
Impact of Recent Bankruptcy Filings on Security Clearance Decisions
Consideration of National Security Interests in Clearance Determinations

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 Department of Defense 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 Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert J. Kilmartin — 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 argued 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 considered all evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was not arbitrary or capricious.

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 E. Moody
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 cites to his having held a clearance for many years without incident or concern, the terms of his bankruptcy payment requirement, financial obligations resulting from having children in college, and to his years of service to the DoD. He argues that, with his bankruptcy plan in place, he is well on the way to resolving his debts. Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor are they sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-00621.a1 DATE: 10/23/2018 DATE: October 23, 2018 In Re: -------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-00621

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 March 22, 2018, 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 July 30, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin 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 Applicant has worked for a Federal contractor since 2003. He retired from the U.S. military in 2003 as an E-6 and held security clearances while on active duty. He currently earns about $95,000 a year. Applicant’s SOR alleges numerous delinquent debts. These include a charged-off home equity loan ($67,700); a Federal tax lien ($51,000); student loans ($17,000 and $13,000); a debt owed to a credit union ($31,000); and other credit card or consumer debts. Applicant attributed his financial problems to his wife’s loss of employment, to tax obligations incurred when he withdrew funds from his retirement account to pay for his daughter’s college tuition, and to poor service from a tax preparation firm. After the hearing, Applicant submitted his IRS tax transcripts for 2010 through 2017 as well as a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Applicant filed the petition after the hearing. The tax transcripts show a history of late filing, inaccuracies, and sporadic payments. Under the bankruptcy plan, Applicant is to pay $1,300 for 60 months. The plan includes Applicant’s tax lien. Other than that, Applicant presented no evidence of payments. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge noted evidence of circumstances beyond Applicant’s control, such as his wife’s job loss and the inadequate service he received from the tax firm. However, he concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to his debts. For example, his bankruptcy plan was not filed until after the hearing. Other than the bankruptcy, and despite having known about his debts for many years, Applicant has shown no sustained efforts at payment. Though noting Applicant’s military service and his contributions to the DoD, the Judge stated that Applicant had not addressed the SOR allegations in a manner sufficient to meet his burden of persuasion.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to his having held a clearance for many years without incident or concern, the terms of his bankruptcy payment requirement, financial obligations resulting from having children in college, and to his years of service to the DoD. He argues that, with his bankruptcy plan in place, he is well on the way to resolving his debts. Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor are they 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. 17-02145 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 10, 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board