CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01005.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01005.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01005.a1

Mar 31, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 35-year-old defense contractor and military veteran was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from unresolved delinquent debts totaling over $25,000. The applicant admitted to some of these debts and stated that repayment efforts were underway.

However, the applicant failed to provide adequate documentation to substantiate these claims of repayment. Further concerns about the applicant's reliability and judgment were raised by actions such as taking a personal trip abroad while still burdened with significant debt.

Ultimately, the appeal board affirmed the denial, citing the applicant's unresolved financial obligations and insufficient evidence of repayment efforts as disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20(a). The board concluded that these issues raised doubts about the applicant's trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedMay 31, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJan 21, 2020
Decision dateMar 31, 2020

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Documentation in Demonstrating Repayment Efforts
Reliability and Trustworthiness Concerns in Security Clearance Evaluations

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 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 weighing of evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Robinson Gales — 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 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 Applicant's arguments did not demonstrate any harmful error. The Judge's weighing of the evidence was not arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural compliance

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’s arguments amounts to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. For example, Applicant takes exception to the Judge’s conclusion that he took a personal trip outside of the United States while he had delinquent debts. His arguments, however, are not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01005.a1 DATE: 03/31/2020 DATE: March 31, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ---------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-01005

) ) 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 May 31, 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 decision on the written record. On January 21, 2020, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales 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 discussion, we affirm the Judge’s decision. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant is a 35-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He served in the military, including in Afghanistan, and received an honorable discharge. He has earned an associate’s degree. He is single and has a child. He was granted a security clearance in 2008. He attributed his financial problems to periods of unemployment, mistakes in the past, and having to make child support payments.

The SOR alleges that Applicant has four delinquent debts (two vehicle repossessions, a student loan, and a credit card account) totaling over $25,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted the two delinquent vehicle loans and stated he was working with the creditors on repayment options. He denied the student loan, indicating he initially thought it was resolved through tax refund withholdings, later learned it had an $800 balance, and stated he would work with the creditor to pay it. He denied the credit card debt, claiming he paid a negotiated settlement amount, and furnishing a confirmation number for that payment. He provided no documentation confirming payments or other efforts to resolve the delinquent debts. In the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Department Counsel highlighted the lack of documentation supporting Applicant’s contentions. Applicant did not respond to the FORM. Despite his delinquent debts, Applicant took a personal trip outside the United States in 2015. “Applicant’s actions, or inaction, under the circumstances cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.” Decision at 8.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s appeal brief contains new evidence, i.e., assertions and an email string of messages that are not contained in the record. His arguments that he started to resolve his delinquent debts before he was placed on notice that his security clearance eligibility was in jeopardy and that the Judge erred in finding or concluding that he did not receive financial counseling or did not have a budget are primarily based on new evidence that we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

The balance of Applicant’s arguments amounts to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. For example, Applicant takes exception to the Judge’s conclusion that he took a personal trip outside of the United States while he had delinquent debts. His 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. 17-00257 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2017). Applicant’s appeal brief fails to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error or that he should be granted a conditional security clearance under Directive, Encl. 2, App. C. 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