CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-07747.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-07747.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-07747.a1

Jul 3, 2007· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a serious and lengthy history of not meeting financial obligations. The judges determined that the applicant's financial problems were ongoing at the time of the hearing, with several delinquent debts still unresolved.

While the applicant presented arguments intended to mitigate these concerns, they were deemed insufficient to overcome the government's objections. The decision highlighted that the applicant was still in the process of resolving his financial issues, indicating that the problems had not been fully addressed.

Ultimately, the judge reasonably concluded that the applicant's financial problems persisted, leading to the denial of the security clearance. The disqualifying conditions raised under AG ¶ 19 were not adequately mitigated by the conditions applied under AG ¶ 20.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge found the applicant's mitigating evidence insufficient to overcome the government's security concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“The absence of security violations does not bar or preclude an adverse security clearance decision.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 19, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 27, 2006
Decision dateJul 3, 2007

Cite For

Denial Based on Ongoing Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Mitigating Evidence Regarding Financial Obligations
Whole Person Analysis in Security Clearance Decisions

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 from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that the Judge did not adequately weigh mitigating evidence, including a long history of holding a clearance without incident and efforts to resolve debts. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's decision.

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 argued that the Judge did not give sufficient weight to mitigating evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge reasonably concluded that the Applicant's financial problems were ongoing and that the mitigating evidence presented was insufficient to overcome the government's security concerns.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

Michael D. Hipple
Jean E. Smallin
William S. Fields

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: The absence of security violations does not bar an adverse security clearance decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 05-07747.a1 DATE: 07/03/2007 DATE: July 3, 2007 In Re: ---------- SSN: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 05-07747

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On June 19, 2006, DOHA 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 December 27, 2006, after the hearing, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred by concluding that the security concerns raised under Guideline F had not been mitigated. Applicant argues that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge did not give sufficient weight to Applicant’s mitigating evidence which shows that Applicant has held a security clearance without incident for approximately 20 years and has now established a plan to pay off his outstanding debts. In his brief, Applicant submits new evidence in the form of an additional statement about his continuing efforts to resolve his financial problems. The Board does not find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Its submission does not demonstrate error on the part of the Judge. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-00799 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 16, 2007). The absence of security violations does not bar or preclude an adverse security clearance decision. The federal government need not wait until an applicant actually mishandles or fails to properly handle classified information before it can deny or revoke access to such information. See Adams v. Laird, 420 F. 2d 230, 238-239 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1039 (1970). An applicant with good or exemplary job performance may engage in conduct that has negative security implications. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 99-0123 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 11, 2000). The Directive's Guidelines set forth a variety of examples of off-duty conduct and circumstances which are of security concern to the government and mandate a whole person analysis to determine an applicant's security eligibility. A whole person analysis is not confined to the workplace. See ISCR Case No. 03-11231 at 3 (App. Bd. June 4, 2004). “[T]here is a strong presumption against granting a security clearance.” Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9 Cir. 1990), cert. denied 499 U.S. 905 (1991). Once the government th presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation. The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions and whole person factors does not turn simply on a finding that one or more of them apply to the particular facts of a case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 01-14740 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan.15, 2003). Thus, the presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. An applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a lengthy and serious history of not meeting financial obligations. At the time of the hearing, Applicant still had delinquent debts and was still in the process of resolving his financial problems. In light of the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that Applicant’s financial problems were still ongoing. The Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the length and seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible application of relevant mitigating conditions and whole person factors. The Judge reasonably explained why the evidence which the Applicant had presented in mitigation was insufficient to overcome the government’s security concerns. The Board does not review a case de novo. The favorable record evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 03-14873 at 2 (App. Bd. Sept. 28, 2006). Given the record that was before him, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision under Guidelines F is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board