Loading case…

ISCR 19-03863.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2021) · CASE

ISCR Case 19-03863.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-03863.a1

Apr 7, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent debts totaling approximately $35,150. The appeal board affirmed this denial, citing the applicant's financial situation and insufficient mitigation efforts as critical factors.

Specifically, the applicant had seven delinquent debts, and while he admitted to four of them, he did not take action on the larger debts until confronted during a background interview. The board found that the evidence provided was insufficient to mitigate the security concerns raised by these financial issues.

The decision to deny the clearance was based on disqualifying conditions F.2 and F.3, with mitigating conditions F.1 and F.2 considered but ultimately deemed insufficient to overcome the security risks posed by the applicant's unaddressed financial obligations.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedDelinquent Debts

Mitigating

F.1rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant did not demonstrate that he had taken sufficient action to address the debts.
F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's financial obligations, including child support, were acknowledged but did not mitigate the 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 issuedApr 29, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 25, 2021
Decision dateApr 7, 2021Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite for

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Delinquent Debts
Standard for Granting Clearance Related to National Security Interests

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 challenge to the Administrative Judge's finding regarding the Applicant's receipt of disability pay and the weighing of evidence related to financial considerations. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful errors that would affect the outcome of the case.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding that he is receiving disability pay.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues the Judge's weighing of evidence was arbitrary and capricious.

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 while the Judge may have erred regarding the Applicant's receipt of disability pay, it did not constitute a harmful error as it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. The Judge's decision was supported by 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: Guidleline F DIGEST: Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding that he is receiving disability pay. This finding reads, “Applicant currently earns between $85,000 and $87,000 per year, depending on overtime, plus disability pay of about $1,000 per month. (Tr. 27, 29)” Decision at 4. Applicant’s challenge has some merit. In his testimony, Applicant stated he was going to start receiving disability pay of about $1,000 from the Department of Veteran Affairs but did not state he was receiving such payments at that time. On the other hand, the Judge’s discussion of the disability pay on Page 3 of the Decision, which notes Applicant was waiting to receive such pay, is much more consistent with his testimony. While the Judge may have erred regarding Applicant’s receipt of disability pay, it does not constitute a harmful error because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-03863.a1 DATE: 04/07/2021 DATE: April 7, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) ) ----------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-03863 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se

TheDepartment of Defense(DoD) declined to grant Applicant a securityclearance. On April 29, 2020, 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 January 25, 2021, after the hearing, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the Judge’s decision. The SOR alleged that Applicant had seven delinquent debts totaling about $35,150. Applicant admitted four SOR allegations with the largest debts and denied the remaining three allegations with debts that totaled about $680. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on an alleged credit card debt of about $8,700 because he made payments that significantly reduced its balance. The Judge found against Applicant on the remaining allegations, noting that he had taken no action concerning two of the larger debts and did not begin taking action on the other debts until he was confronted about them in a background interview. The Judge concluded that Applicant did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate the alleged security concerns. In his appeal brief, Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding that he is receiving disability pay. This finding reads, “Applicant currently earns between $85,000 and $87,000 per year, depending on overtime, plus disability pay of about $1,000 per month. (Tr. 27, 29)” Decision at 4. Applicant’s challenge has some merit. In his testimony, Applicant stated he was going to start receiving disability pay of about $1,000 from the Department of Veteran Affairs but did not state he was receiving such payments at that time. Id. On the other hand, the Judge’s discussion of the disability pay on Page 3 of the Decision, which notes Applicant was waiting to receive such pay, is much more consistent with his testimony. While the Judge may have erred regarding Applicant’s receipt of disability pay, it does not constitute a harmful error because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01220 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 1, 2020). Applicant’s other arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. For example, he highlights that his child support payments of about $14,400 per year greatly impact his ability to satisfy the alleged debts, that he has had access to sensitive information in the past without any issues, that he is not subject to coercion or exploitation, that his has been meeting his current financial obligations for years, and that he was not living beyond his means when he incurred the alleged debts. An ability to argue for an alternative interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01400 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 3, 2020). 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