CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00319.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-00319.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-00319.a1

Jun 2, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 13 delinquent debts totaling over $36,000. The appeal board upheld the judge's decision, finding no harmful errors and affirming that the applicant's financial situation posed a risk to national security.

Disqualifying condition F.3 was raised, while mitigating conditions F.2 and F.3 were applied. The denial was based on the applicant's admission of the 13 delinquent debts. Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide sufficient corroborating documentation to support his claims of having resolved some of these debts.

Despite the applicant's acknowledged efforts to address some of his financial obligations, the lack of adequate documentation and the significant outstanding debt led to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Led to the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support this claim.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant's claims of making payments were not sufficiently corroborated.

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 18, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 24, 2021Decision on the written record.
Decision dateJun 2, 2021Appeal decision.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Corroboration of Efforts to Resolve Debts
Standard for National Security Eligibility Regarding Financial Issues

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 did not challenge the specific findings of the Administrative Judge but provided context regarding his financial situation and military service. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful errors in the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not challenge any specific findings of fact or conclusions.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful errors in the Judge's decision, which 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 appeal

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 does not challenge any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact or conclusions. Rather, he discusses conditions that impacted his financial situation and his efforts to resolve the debts, highlights his military service and family issues, and notes that he has been working at a company for over two years and has had no problems. None of his arguments are sufficient to show the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 20-00319.a1 DATE: 06/02/2021 DATE: June 2, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) ) -------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 20-00319 ) ) 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 18, 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 decision on the written record. On March 24, 2021, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 13 delinquent debts totaling over $36,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted ten of the debt allegations. The Judge concluded that Applicant had resolved a child support arrearage and a collection account, and she found in favor of him on those debts. In her analysis, the Judge noted that Applicant stated he was making payments to resolve other debts but failed to provide sufficient corroborating documentation. In his appeal brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact or conclusions. Rather, he discusses conditions that impacted his financial situation and his efforts to resolve the debts, highlights his military service and family issues, and notes that he has been working at a company for over two years and has had no problems. None of his arguments are sufficient to show the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is 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 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