Loading case…

ISCR 07-11814.a2: Guideline F security clearance appeal, granted (2008) · CASE

ISCR Case 07-11814.a2granted

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-11814.a2

Dec 29, 2008· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A pro se applicant was granted a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) despite initial concerns regarding delinquent debts. The judge determined that the applicant had successfully mitigated these concerns, leading to a favorable decision.

The applicant demonstrated financial stability and a pattern of responsible financial choices. Key factors included having no unpaid educational debts and being current on all mortgage payments. The judge also noted that the applicant's past financial difficulties were largely attributable to the conduct of a former partner.

Applying mitigating conditions AG ¶ 19 and AG ¶ 20, the judge concluded that the applicant had resolved the security concerns related to financial considerations. This assessment of the applicant's current financial health and responsible behavior resulted in the granting of the security clearance.

Conditions referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20appliedMitigating ConditionsThe applicant has shown a track record of timely payments and financial responsibility.
AG ¶ 19appliedMitigating ConditionsThe applicant's financial problems were primarily due to circumstances beyond her control.

Key rule quoted

“Delinquent debt may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations.”
Directive ¶ E2.18.

Procedural posture

SOR issuedNov 26, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 14, 2008
Decision dateDec 29, 2008Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite for

Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Whole-person Analysis in Security Clearance Decisions
Impact of Personal Circumstances on Financial Responsibility

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 security clearance decision where the Administrative Judge granted the applicant a clearance despite financial concerns under Guideline F. The Department Counsel appealed, arguing that the Judge's findings were unsupported by evidence and that the whole-person analysis was flawed. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMary E. Henry granted the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence, raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Rejected
Department Counsel argued that certain findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence.
Whole-person analysis, raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Rejected
Department Counsel contended that the Judge's whole-person analysis was unsustainable.

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 found no harmful error in the Judge's decision, affirming the favorable security clearance based on the totality of the record evidence.

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: Although Department Counsel correctly points out that the Judge’s analysis and application of the statute of limitation is erroneous in the security clearance adjudication context, the error is harmless in this case in light of the totality of the record evidence. Favorable decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-11814.a2 DATE: 12/29/2008 DATE: December 29, 2008 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-11814

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Gina L. Marine, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On November 26, 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 May 14, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mary E. Henry granted Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Department Counsel filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On August 29, 2008, the Board remanded the case to the Judge for a new decision. On September 16, 2008, the Judge issued her decision on remand. Department Counsel again filed a timely appeal pursuant to the Directive. Department Counsel raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings of fact are supported by substantial record evidence and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis is unsustainable. Finding no harmful error, we affirm. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant has numerous delinquent debts arising from a romantic relationship that she terminated in 2000. Although she attempted to pay the debts, she defaulted on some of them, receiving no assistance from her former partner. While Applicant acknowledges some of the debts, she disagrees with others. She completed an Associate Degree in Applied Science in 2005 and “incurred no unpaid debts for her education.” Decision at 3. She has purchased a modular home for herself and her children and is current on her mortgage payments. She has paid off a recent automobile loan and has opened credit card accounts in the three years preceding the decision, for which she makes timely payments. In performing her whole-person analysis, the Judge relied on record evidence of Applicant’s having (1) achieved financial stability; (2) lived within her means in recent years; (3) purchased a home; (4) earned a college degree; and (5) established a good record of employment. The Judge also considered, inter alia, the extent to which Applicant’s financial problems were rooted in the conduct of her former partner and that, as her children’s sole provider, she has had to make financial choices with an eye toward their well-being. The security concern under Guideline F is that delinquent debt “may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations[.]” Directive ¶ E2.18. Given the record before her, the Judge has articulated a rational explanation for her conclusion that Applicant had mitigated the security concern in her case. 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)). Department Counsel correctly points out that the Judge’s analysis and application of the statute of limitations is erroneous in the security clearance adjudication context. In this case, however, the error is harmless, viewed in light of the totality of the record evidence.

ORDER

The Judge’s favorable 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