CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-10320.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-10320.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-10320.a1

Nov 7, 2007· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a significant history of delinquent debts and ongoing financial issues. The decision highlighted the necessity of a whole-person analysis in evaluating security eligibility.

Disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 20 were raised, citing the applicant's lengthy and serious history of not meeting financial obligations. At the time of the hearing, the applicant still had significant delinquent debts.

While mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 21(a) and AG ¶ 21(c) were applied, including claims of unemployment and good job performance, the judges found this evidence insufficient to overcome the government's security concerns. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21(a)rejectedMitigating CircumstancesThe applicant's financial problems were still ongoing.
AG ¶ 21(c)rejectedMitigating CircumstancesThe applicant's good job performance did not mitigate the financial issues.

Key Rule Quoted

“[T]here is a strong presumption against granting a security clearance.”
— Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 20, 2006
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldMay 31, 2007
Decision dateNov 7, 2007

Cite For

Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Whole-person Analysis in Security Clearance Determinations
Presumption Against Granting Security Clearance in Cases of Financial Delinquency

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 regarding the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that the Judge did not adequately weigh her mitigating evidence. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the assessment of the evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

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 regarding her financial situation.

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

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
Jeffrey D. Billett
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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY When unredacted this document contains information EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA Exemption 6 applies KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant still had significant delinquent debt at the time of the hearing. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-10320.a1 DATE: 11/07/2007 DATE: November 7, 2007 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-10320

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 December 20, 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 that the case be decided upon the written record. On May 31, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch 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 showed that: (a) Applicant’s indebtedness had resulted from circumstance beyond her control—a period of unemployment; (b) she had paid off, been making payments on, or been otherwise disputing her outstanding debts; and (c) her job performance had been excellent and she had never mishandled sensitive information. Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate that the Judge erred. 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. Jun. 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. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007). 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 significant delinquent debts and was still in the process of resolving her financial problems. In light of the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that Applicant’s financial problems were still ongoing. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-07747 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2007). 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., ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007). Given the record that was before her, 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board