CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-11721.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-11721.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-11721.a1

Feb 15, 2008· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unresolved financial issues. The decision cited a history of not meeting financial obligations over many years, with five delinquent debts totaling approximately $10,000 still outstanding at the time of the decision.

The judges determined that the applicant's financial problems were ongoing and presented a security concern. Disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 20 were raised, while mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 21 were considered but ultimately not applied.

The applicant's arguments for mitigation were deemed insufficient because the financial problems remained unresolved. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's financial problems were ongoing and not sufficiently mitigated.

Key Rule Quoted

“The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions does not turn simply on a finding that one or more of them apply to the particular facts of a case.”
— ISCR Case No. 06-09462 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jul.19, 2007)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 23, 2007
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself (pro se).
Hearing heldOct 9, 2007
Decision dateFeb 15, 2008

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Problems
Ongoing Financial Obligations as a Security Concern

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 under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and that his financial issues were due to circumstances beyond his control. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the assessment of the applicant's financial situation.

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

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's unfavorable clearance decision under Guideline F was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant did not demonstrate that the Judge's conclusions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge reasonably weighed the evidence and concluded that the applicant's financial problems presented ongoing 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

Jeffrey D. Billett
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 Judge found Applicant had a history of not meeting his financial obligations and still had five delinquent debts, The Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable or vice versa. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-11721.a1 DATE: 02/15/2008 DATE: February 15, 2008 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-11721

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 May 23, 2007, 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 October 9, 2007, 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’s unfavorable clearance decision under Guideline F is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Applicant contends that the Judge should have concluded that the security concerns raised by his multiple unpaid debts had been mitigated. In support of that contention, Applicant argues that his financial problems were the result of circumstances beyond his control, loss of employment and a divorce, and that he is disputing one of the debts. Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate that the Judge erred. The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions does not turn simply on a finding that one or more of them apply to the particular facts of a case. Rather, their application requires the exercise of sound discretion in light of the record evidence as a whole. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06- 09462 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jul.19, 2007). 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. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-03452 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2007). 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 that 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. 05-07747 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2007).

Applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating that the Judge erred in concluding that the security concerns raised by Applicant’s unpaid debts had not been mitigated. Although Applicant strongly disagrees with the Judge’s conclusions, he has not established that those conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a history of not meeting financial obligations which extended over many years. At the time the case was submitted for decision, he still had five delinquent debts totaling approximately $10,000, and was still in the process of trying to resolve his financial problems. In light of the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that Applicant’s financial problems were still ongoing and presented a security concern. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-00799 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 16, 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. He reasonably explained why the evidence which Applicant had presented in mitigation was insufficient to overcome all of 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. 02-28041 at 4 (App. Bd. Jun. 29, 2005). Given the record that was before him, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable clearance decision under Guideline F is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett 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