CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-01716 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-01716denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01716

Nov 1, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 12 delinquent debts totaling approximately $36,000. The appeal board affirmed the denial, finding the applicant's claims of financial responsibility insufficient due to a lack of supporting documentation for her efforts to resolve the debts.

The judge applied Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19 and Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 20. However, the judge ultimately found that the applicant presented scant documentation of her efforts to resolve her debts.

Consequently, the judge concluded that the applicant's financial issues remained unresolved and were significant to national security, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's claims of financial responsibility were deemed insufficient due to lack of documentation.

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 issuedJul 6, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 30, 2019
Decision dateNov 1, 2019Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Insufficient Documentation of Debt Resolution Efforts Under Guideline F
Importance of National Security in Clearance Determinations
Harmless Error in Findings of Fact Regarding Unemployment Periods

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 argued that the Judge erred in assessing her financial situation and unemployment history. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error that would change the outcome.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge ignored evidence of her consistent payments and her responsible nature.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
Applicant contended that the Judge erred in the finding regarding the scope of her unemployment.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were sustainable based on the evidence presented, and the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error that would affect the outcome of the case.

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: As the Board has previously stated, it is reasonable for the Judge to expect applicants to present documentation showing that debts have been resolved or are being resolved. The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant presented scant documentation of her efforts to resolve the alleged debts is sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-01716 DATE: 11/01/2019 DATE: November 1, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ---------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-01716 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

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 July 6, 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, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had 12 delinquent debts totaling about $36,000. She indicated that she was working with her known creditors but provided no documentation corroborating those efforts. She admitted she has made little progress due to a lack of financial resources. “After three months of unemployment in mid-2009, she started a job earning about $45,000 and has received incremental salary increases ever since.” Decision at 2. She has been in her current position for over two years, and her annual salary recently increased from $105,000 to $115,000. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on four of the alleged debts and against her on the remaining ones. In her appeal brief, Applicant contends that her periods of unemployment totaled approximately one year and were the cause of her financial problems. Information in the record reflects that she experienced periods of unemployment greater than the Judge found. Her security clearance application and personal subject interview reflect that she experienced seven periods of unemployment between 2009 and 2016 totaling about 21 months. Although the Judge may have erred in his finding regarding the scope of Applicant’s unemployment, this constituted a harmless error because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-00678 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 13, 2014). Applicant also contends that all of her “current credit accounts and car payments have been consistently paid on time since 2016” and that she is adhering to payment arrangements with a number of the creditors Appeal Brief at 1. As the Board has previously stated, it is reasonable for the Judge to expect applicants to present documentation showing that debts have been resolved or are being resolved. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-00893 at 3 (App. Bd. May 9, 2019). The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant presented scant documentation of her efforts to resolve the alleged debts is sustainable. Applicant’s remaining arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. She argues, for example, that she is an extremely responsible and trustworthy individual. These arguments, however, are not 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. 15-08684 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2017). Applicant has failed to establish 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

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