CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-04482.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-04482.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-04482.a1

May 21, 2007· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues and misuse of a company credit card. The applicant had thirteen delinquent debts totaling approximately $37,288. Additionally, he used a company credit card for personal debts, resulting in formal counseling.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide a reasonable explanation for his financial troubles and his inability to submit sufficient evidence of repayment efforts. The appeal board affirmed the denial, citing these factors as central to the decision.

The disqualifying conditions raised were AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15, which pertain to personal conduct and financial considerations, respectively. Ultimately, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The record is devoid of evidence of payment.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 7, 2006
Answer filedApr 28, 2006
Hearing held—Decision made on written record.
Decision dateMay 21, 2007

Cite For

Denial Based on Substantial Evidence of Financial Issues
Insufficient Evidence of Debt Repayment Efforts
Misuse of Company Credit Card as a Disqualifying Factor

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 and personal conduct. The Applicant argued that the Judge did not consider evidence of debt repayment. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error that would change the outcome.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJacqueline T. Williams — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed the Judge failed to consider evidence of debt repayment.

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 concluded that even if the Applicant's purported evidence of repayment had been received, it was not reasonably likely to have changed the outcome due to the substantial debts and lack of explanation for financial troubles.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Jean E. Smallin
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

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; Guideline E DIGEST: In light of the Judge’s decision to give weight to Applicant’s failure to explain the origins of his financial troubles and the substantial amounts of his debts, the Board concludes that even if Applicant’s purported evidence of initiation of repayment of smaller debts and arrangements for the other debts had been received, it is not reasonably likely that it would have resulted in a different outcome. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 05-04482.a1 DATE: 05/21/2007 DATE: May 21, 2007 In Re: ---------- SSN: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 05-04482

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Julie R. Edmunds, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On April 7, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis Applicant did not provide a copy of these documents and/or their cover letter to corroborate this assertion on appeal. for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On October 20, 2006, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Jacqueline T. Williams denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant has submitted the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s finding that Applicant failed to submit proof of debt repayment is based on substantial evidence. Specifically, Applicant asserts that he submitted such proof, but for reasons he does not understand this proof did not make its way into the record. We affirm the Judge’s decision. Other than the matter referenced above, Applicant does not challenge the Judge’s findings. These findings establish that Applicant had thirteen delinquent debts, totaling about $37,288, which constitute the security concerns alleged under Guideline F. For five of these debts, Applicant averred that he had paid them or was making arrangements for payment. The Judge stated, however, that “the record is devoid of evidence of payment.” Furthermore, Applicant used his company credit card to pay personal debts not related to his employment, for which he received formal counseling. That circumstance constitutes the security concern alleged under Guideline E. In examining the issue on appeal, we note that the record demonstrates the following: on April 11, 2006, DOHA provided Applicant a copy of the SOR, which he answered on April 28, 2006. On July 13, 2006, Applicant was provided a copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM). He did not respond to the FORM within the 30 days allotted. The Judge received the FORM for her decision on August 28, 2006. In his appeal submission, Applicant states that, on May 6, 2006, he mailed to DOHA documentation which he asserts would substantiate his repayment efforts, but which was not included in the FORM. Having submitted this material by regular mail, Applicant acknowledges that he has no means of corroborating his assertion. In his appeal submission, he describes these matters as follows: “The documentation submitted provided proof of initiating and effort of paying 3 of the smaller bills in full and proof of payment arrangement with others. I also provided a copy of letters submitted to the 3 creditors requesting payment arrangements and or settlement agreements. . . I have paid off several of my [debts] over the [past] 8 years which I believe was not considered.” In her discussion of Applicant’s case, the Judge gave weight to the fact that Applicant never provided a reasonable explanation as to how he got into financial trouble in the first place, that his undisputed debts were of a substantial amount, that the file contained no basis to believe that Applicant ever sought counseling for his financial troubles, and that Applicant attempted to lessen his problems through misuse of his company credit card. Decision at 7. In light of the Judge’s reliance on these matters, and her relative lack of emphasis on repayment efforts, we conclude that, even if the missing information had been included, it is not reasonably likely that it “would have resulted in a different outcome.” ISCR Case No. 03-09915 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 16, 2004). Therefore, we affirm the Judge’s decision.

ORDER

The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board