CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-02820.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-02820.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02820.a1

Nov 22, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 16 delinquent debts. The applicant admitted to 15 of these debts but did not provide evidence of payments or other actions taken to resolve them.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, finding no error in the judge's conclusion that the applicant's pending divorce did not mitigate her financial irresponsibility. The board determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate responsible actions regarding her debts, even considering her personal circumstances.

The decision emphasized that a security clearance can only be granted when it is clearly consistent with national security interests. Given the applicant's unresolved financial issues and lack of demonstrated responsibility, the board upheld the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedMitigating ConditionThe applicant did not show she acted responsibly under the circumstances of her divorce.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedMitigating ConditionThe applicant failed to demonstrate responsible actions regarding her debts despite her pending divorce.

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 issuedFeb 1, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 9, 2019
Decision dateNov 22, 2019

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Multiple Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Rejection of Mitigating Condition Related to Personal Circumstances Such as Divorce
Emphasis on National Security Interests in Clearance Decisions

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 Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that her pending divorce was not properly considered as a mitigating factor. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — 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 contends the Judge did not properly apply her divorce as a mitigating factor.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision, which was based on substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

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: In her appeal brief, Applicant notes that she is going through a divorce and contends the Judge did not properly apply that life-changing event in her case. Her appeal brief contains an undated and unsigned Entry of Judgment for a dissolution of marriage that was not presented to the DOHA Judge for consideration. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. In the findings of fact, the Judge noted that Applicant was pending a divorce. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02820.a1 DATE: 11/22/2019

DATE: November 22, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ------------ ) ISCR Case No. 18-02820 ) ) 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 February 1, 2019, 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 September 9, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola 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 16 delinquent debts. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted 15 of them. The Judge found against Applicant on all of the debts, noting she submitted no documentation showing payments to resolve them. In her appeal brief, Applicant notes that she is going through a divorce and contends the Judge did not properly apply that life-changing event in her case. Her appeal brief contains an undated and unsigned Entry of Judgment for a dissolution of marriage that was not presented to the DOHA Judge for consideration. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In the findings of fact, the Judge noted that Applicant was pending a divorce. The Judge concluded that Mitigating Condition 20(b) did not apply. For this mitigating condition to apply, an applicant must not only experience a circumstance largely beyond his or her control (such as a separation or divorce) that resulted in the financial problem, but also show he or she has acted responsibly under the circumstances. See Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 20(b). Based on the record evidence, we find no error in the Judge’s conclusion that Mitigating Condition 20(b) did not apply. Applicant has failed to established that the Judge’s conclusions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error. Therefore, we affirm 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. “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