Loading case…

ISCR 20-01527.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2021) · CASE

ISCR Case 20-01527.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-01527.a1

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

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The denial stemmed from four delinquent student loans, totaling approximately $27,600. While the applicant admitted to two larger loans, she denied the existence of two others.

A key factor in the denial was the applicant's failure to provide evidence of resolving or attempting to resolve these debts. The judge found no harmful error in the factual findings concerning her financial situation, specifically citing Disqualifying Condition F.3.

Ultimately, the appeal board affirmed the denial, underscoring that national security interests take precedence in clearance determinations and that the applicant had not adequately addressed her 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 issuedSep 22, 2020
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMar 26, 2021Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales.
Decision dateJun 7, 2021Appeal affirmed by the board.

Cite for

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Resolving Debts for Security Clearance Eligibility
Precedence of National Security Interests in Clearance Determinations

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 the President's pause on student loan collections should mitigate her financial issues and challenged the Judge's findings regarding her reliability. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful errors in the ruling.

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 contended that the Judge erred in finding she had two background interviews.
No specific harmful error alleged, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the President's pause on student loan collection should mitigate her financial issues.
No specific harmful error alleged, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant challenged the Judge's weighing of evidence regarding her reliability and current accounts.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful errors in the Judge's findings and concluded that the decision was sustainable based on the evidence presented.

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: Applicant notes that President Biden extended a pause on the collection of student loans. See https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/ pausing- student-loan-payments/. In her SOR response, she also mentioned the Government’s pause on student loan collection efforts. The Judge addressed this issue by concluding that, while the President’s action effectively places Applicant’s student loans in a deferment status, “it does not excuse Applicant’s past inactions in the context of security clearance eligibility.” A credit report in the record reflects that Applicant’s student loan delinquencies date back to at least December 2014. Based on that evidence, we find no error in the Judge’s conclusion. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 20-01527.a1 DATE: 06/07/2021 DATE: June 7, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) ) ----------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 20-01527 ) ) 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 September 22, 2020, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—securityconcerns 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 26, 2021, 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 four delinquent student loan totaling about $27,600. Applicant admitted the two larger delinquent loans totaling over $20,000 and denied the other two. In December 2020, Applicant was provided a copy of Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) and was given 30 days to submit objections and additional matters for the Judge to consider. Applicant did not submit a response to the FORM. The Judge found against Applicant on the three largest debts, concluding she had failed to submit documentary evidence that showed she had resolved or attempted to resolve those debts. Applicant’s appeal submission contains documents and assertions that were not submitted to the Judge for consideration. Most of those documents post-date the Judge’s decision. Those documents and assertions constitute new evidence the Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. As a related matter, Applicant argues that she has resolved her student loans but fails to identify any record evidence that supports her contention. Credit reports in the record confirm Applicant’s delinquent student loans. Applicant contends the Judge erred in finding she had two background interviews. A review of Item 9 of the FORM reveals that Applicant was interviewed by an investigator in person in February 2018 and later that month the investigator contacted her by telephone/fax to obtain further information. Applicant has not established that the Judge committed any harmful error in his findings of fact. In her appeal brief, Applicant notes that President Biden extended a pause on the collection of student loans. See https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/ pausing-student-loan-payments/. In her SOR response, she also mentioned the Government’s pause on student loan collection efforts. The Judge addressed this issue by concluding that, while the President’s action effectively places Applicant’s student loans in a deferment status, “it does not excuse Applicant’s past inactions in the context of security clearance eligibility.” Decision at 9. A credit report in the record reflects that Applicant’s student loan delinquencies date back to at least December 2014. FORM Items 5 at 6-7 and 7 at 2. Based on that evidence, we find no error in the Judge’s conclusion. Applicant raises other arguments that amount to a challenge of the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. For example, she points out that all of her other accounts are current and she has never missed any payments on them. She further argues that she is a reliable person, that the delinquent student loans date back over ten years, and that the alleged security concerns have been mitigated. None of her 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