CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02306.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-02306.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02306.a1

May 13, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to seven delinquent debts totaling approximately $27,300. The applicant admitted to three of these debts but denied the remaining four without providing evidence of any efforts to resolve them.

The appeal board reviewed the case and affirmed the denial. They found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the judge's initial decision was arbitrary or capricious. Specifically, the board noted the lack of evidence regarding the applicant's attempts to resolve the outstanding financial obligations.

Consequently, the appeal board concluded that the judge's decision to deny the clearance was sustainable and consistent with national security interests, upholding the denial based on the applicant's unresolved financial delinquencies.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

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 issuedAug 23, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldFeb 28, 2020Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales.
Decision dateMay 13, 2020Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of Providing Evidence of Debt Resolution Efforts
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal Process

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 against the weight of the evidence and included new documents not considered by the Judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision, stating that the applicant did not establish any harmful errors in the Judge's findings.

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

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge's decision is against the great weight of the evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, affirming that the decision was sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealNo de-novo re-decisionSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

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 appeal brief contains documents postdating the Judge’s decision. He makes various arguments based on those documents. The Appeal Board, however, is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02306.a1 DATE: 05/13/2020

DATE: May 13, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) --------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-02306 ) ) 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 August 23, 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 February 28, 2020, after considering the record, 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. The SOR alleged that Applicant had seven delinquent debts totaling about $28,000. The Judge noted there was an error regarding the amount of one of the alleged debts, and the debts actually totaled about $27, 300. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted three of the alleged debts and denied the others. The Judge found against Applicant on all of the SOR allegations, noting he offered no documentary evidence showing that he has taken or is taking actions to resolve them.

Applicant’s appeal brief contains documents postdating the Judge’s decision. He makes various arguments based on those documents. The Appeal Board, however, is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that the Judge’s “decision is against the great weight of the evidence that was presented to the Judge.” Appeal Brief at 1. In his arguments, he cites to various matters pertaining to his background, such as his military record, employment history, and family situation. He also makes assertions regarding some of the debts. The Judge addressed many of these matters in his decision. Based on our review of the record, Applicant’s arguments are neither enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor 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. 15-04856 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2017). Applicant has failed to establish the Judge committed any harmful errors. 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