Loading case…

ISCR 06-08904.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2007) · CASE

ISCR Case 06-08904.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-08904.a1

Nov 28, 2007· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An engineer with a joint annual income of approximately $156,000 was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved debts totaling $10,669. The applicant disputed one debt but made no effort to contact the creditor. Additionally, the applicant failed to pay a larger debt, claiming it was old and unenforceable, but provided no corroborating evidence for this assertion.

The applicant's inaction regarding these financial obligations raised significant doubts about his trustworthiness and reliability. Specifically, Disqualifying Condition F.3 was cited, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations.

Ultimately, the appeal board upheld the adverse decision, affirming the judge's findings and conclusions that the applicant demonstrated financial irresponsibility. The security clearance was therefore denied.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key rule quoted

“Applicant’s handling of his financial matters casts considerable doubt as to whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him a security clearance.”

Procedural posture

SOR issuedNov 27, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 17, 2007
Decision dateNov 28, 2007

Cite for

Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Unresolved Debts on Security Clearance
Trustworthiness Concerns Related to Financial Management

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 disputed two debts and sought a security clearance after an adverse decision by an Administrative Judge. The Board reviewed the applicant's claims of error regarding the Judge's findings and application of law. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowElizabeth M. Matchinski 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's factual findings were not based on substantial evidence.
Legal error, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge erred in concluding that Department Counsel met its burden of production.
Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed that the Judge erred in her application of the appropriate mitigating conditions.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted that the Judge's whole person analysis was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.
Judge bias or partiality, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged that the Judge was biased against him.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's findings and concluded that her decision was sustainable based on the evidence presented. The Judge's application of disqualifying conditions and mitigating factors was rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

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 Y. Ra’anan (Chair)
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 DIGEST: Applicant disputes a debt of $1,885 but has made no effort contact the creditor. He has made no effort to pay a debt $8,784 because it is old, unenforceable and not on his credit report. The Judge concluded that Applicant’s handling of his finances casts considerable doubt on whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a clearance. The Judge’s conclusion is sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-08904.a1 DATE: 11/28/2007 DATE: November 28, 2007 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-08904

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 November 27, 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 July 17, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s factual findings were based upon substantial evidence; whether the Judge erred in concluding that Department Counsel had met its burden of production; and whether the Judge erred in her application of the appropriate mitigating conditions. We further construe Applicant’s brief as asserting that the Judge’s whole person analysis is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law and that the Judge was biased against Applicant. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following findings of fact: Applicant is an engineer working for a defense contractor. He previously worked for a government agency, holding a top secret clearance. His current salary is $120,000, and his wife earns $36,572.75. He and his wife have a joint savings account with a balance of $314,172.12. His retirement assets are $14,652 and he participates in a savings and investment plan through his employer, the current value of his account being about $100,000. Applicant has two debts on the SOR, one for $1,885 and another for $8,784. These debts have been charged off. Although Applicant has disputed the first debt, he has made no effort to contact the creditor to determine if it is legitimate or not. He has not made any effort to pay off the larger debt, because it is now old, legally unenforceable and no longer maintained on his credit report. The Judge concluded that Applicant had failed to meet his burden of persuasion in denying the legitimacy of the smaller of the two alleged debts. The Judge noted that, in an interrogatory response, Applicant did not deny the debt but claimed that it was not enforceable. She stated that Applicant had provided no corroboration for his contention that the debt was not his own. She concluded that Applicant’s failure to address these debts while possessing the means to do so impugns his trustworthiness and reliability: “. . . Applicant’s handling of his financial matters casts considerable doubt as to whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him a security clearance.” Decision at 8. We have considered Applicant’s assignments of error. We conclude that the Judge’s material findings of security concern are sustainable. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. There is no record evidence that the Judge acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to question her fairness. See ISCR Case No. 04-12911 at 2 (App. Bd. July 25, 2006). We have considered the Judge’s application both of the disqualifying conditions and mitigating factors as well as her whole-person analysis. We conclude that she has drawn a rational connection between her factual findings and her ultimate adverse clearance decision. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). Therefore, we hold that her decision is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law. See Directive ¶¶ E3.1.32.3 and E3.1.33.3.

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, 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