CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01866.a1 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 20-01866.a1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date6/2/2021
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 20-01866) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had filed five Chapter 13 bankruptcies between 1989 and 2017 and had a debt placed for collection. The applicant admitted to the allegations but provided explanations for her financial difficulties.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had a pattern of financial irresponsibility, particularly noting her choice to gamble rather than make payments on her debts. Although the applicant experienced unemployment, she acknowledged her failure to adjust her living habits accordingly. The judge concluded that the applicant did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns raised by her financial history. The applicant's appeal, which included claims of being underrepresented and challenges to the judge's findings, was rejected. The appeal board affirmed the judge's decision, stating that the applicant had not demonstrated any harmful errors in the judge's analysis and that the decision was consistent with national security interests.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-01866.a1

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

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial irresponsibility and gambling issues. The appeal board upheld the denial, finding the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns.

The applicant admitted to five Chapter 13 bankruptcies and a debt that had been placed for collection. The judge determined these issues demonstrated a pattern of financial irresponsibility, exacerbated by gambling problems.

The applicant did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate the disqualifying conditions raised under 19(c), nor did she demonstrate any due process violations. Consequently, the denial of her security clearance was affirmed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

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 issuedOct 29, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 11, 2021Decision on the written record.
Decision dateJun 2, 2021

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Consideration of Gambling as a Factor in Financial Security Concerns
Rebuttable Presumption of Judicial Impartiality in Security Clearance Cases

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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that she was underrepresented and that the Judge erred in her findings regarding the applicant's bankruptcies. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful errors in the Judge's analysis and conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — 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 contended that she was underrepresented and that the Judge erred in finding her bankruptcies were due to financial irresponsibility.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's analysis was biased and did not consider her circumstances adequately.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Administrative Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful errors in the Judge's findings or conclusions.

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.