CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00936.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-00936.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00936.a1

Apr 24, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 30-year-old applicant with a bachelor's degree was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from eight delinquent student loans totaling over $65,000, which the applicant admitted to. These financial issues were identified as disqualifying conditions under F.3.

Despite the applicant's admissions and some evidence of payments, the appeal board found that the applicant failed to develop a consistent repayment plan after college. The applicant's financial management was deemed irresponsible and inconsistent with national security interests.

While mitigating conditions F.20(a) and F.20(c) were considered, the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient mitigation of the financial concerns. Consequently, the appeal board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.20(a)rejectedBehavior Occurred so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Occurred Under Circumstances Unlikely to RecurThe applicant failed to address his delinquent student loans in a serious manner until he received the SOR.
F.20(c)rejectedReceiving Financial Counseling From a Legitimate SourceThe applicant did not provide evidence of receiving financial counseling.

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 issuedApr 25, 2018
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldFeb 12, 2019
Decision dateApr 24, 2019Appeal affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Responsible Financial Management in Relation to National Security
Criteria for Evaluating Mitigating Conditions in Financial 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 an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. 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 weighing of evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Bayard Glendon — 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 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 properly weighed the evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, affirming that the adverse decision 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 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: The Judge, as the trier of fact, has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-00936.a1 DATE: 04/24/2019 DATE: April 24, 2019 In Re: -------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-00936

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 April 25, 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 decision on the written record. On February 12, 2019, after considering the record, Administrative Judge John Bayard Glendon denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues 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, who is 30 years old, earned a bachelor’s degree in 2010. After college, he experienced periods of unemployment and underemployment. In 2016, he began working for a defense contractor. The SOR alleged that Applicant had eight delinquent student loans with balances that total over $65,000. He admitted seven of those allegations. In responding to the SOR, he noted that he took a “hiatus” in his efforts to pay his debts when his wife was pursuing a graduate degree. Applicant provided documentation showing he made some payments on the student loans. In this regard, the Judge found: Without a more detailed explanation from Applicant, I can only conclude that his evidence is intended to show that he has made payments on two or possibly more of his student loan debts, whether alleged in the SOR or not. He presents this evidence in support of his claim that he intends to continue paying these debts at this time and intends to pay all remaining debts alleged in the SOR when he has more income available to him in the future.1 Applicant presented a budget without any explanation that showed a monthly net family income of about $7,781, expenses of about $5,099, and “Discretionary/Savings” of about $2,682.2 He also provided a document reflecting a total debt of $114,560, which may reflect that he and his wife have more student loan debts, and plan to pay them in three years. The Judge’s Analysis Applicant failed to address his delinquent student loans in any serious manner until he received the SOR. Upon graduating from college, he failed to develop a repayment plan. These circumstances were within his control, and he failed to act responsibly in addressing them. 1 Decision at 3. 2 Decision at 3-4.

DISCUSSION

In his brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s rulings or findings of fact. He challenges the Judge’s application of Mitigating Conditions 20(a)3 and 20(c).4 He contends that he provided payment receipts for his “then active” debt accounts, but acknowledged that the account numbers do not directly match those in the SOR because the debts have been passed through collection agencies. Appeal Brief at 1. He also argues that he resumed making payments towards the debts when his wife completed her graduate degree in 2018. His arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. As we stated in the past, the presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. The Judge, as the trier of fact, has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. 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. 15-00650 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 27, 2016). Moreover, even if an applicant has actually paid his debts or is making payments on them, a Judge may still consider the circumstances underlying the debts for what they may reveal about the applicant’s worthiness for a clearance. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02394 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 17, 2015).

Applicant has not established that the Judge committed any harmful error. 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

3 Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 20(a) states, “the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment[.]” 4 Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 20(c) states, “the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control[.]” 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