CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-12543.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-12543.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-12543.a1

Oct 3, 2008· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

A 43-year-old federal contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from approximately $50,000 in delinquent debt, which included multiple collection accounts and unpaid judgments. This situation raised a disqualifying condition under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 20.

The applicant asserted that these debts had been resolved; however, they failed to provide any supporting documentation to substantiate these claims. Without proof of resolution, the adjudicator concluded that the financial concerns remained unmitigated.

Consequently, the decision was made that granting a security clearance to the applicant was not consistent with the national interest, leading to the denial of the clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Substantial evidence is 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.'”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 21, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 3, 2008
Decision dateOct 3, 2008

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Substantial Financial Concerns
Lack of Documentation Supporting Claims of Debt Resolution
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Substantial Evidence

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 filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board found no error and affirmed the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMichael H. Leonard — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's findings of fact are not supported by substantial record evidence.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.
New evidence offered (barred on appeal) — raised by the applicantNot reached
The Applicant requests that the Board reopen the record for the submission of additional documentation.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge’s findings of security concern are supported by substantial record evidence, and the decision is sustainable on this record.

Standard of review applied

Substantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Jean E. Smallin
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: The Judge’s findings of security concern are supported by substantial record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-12543.a1 DATE: 10/03/2008 DATE: October 3, 2008 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-12543

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 21, 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 July 3, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard 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 findings of fact are supported by substantial record evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Applicant also requests that the Board reopen the record for the submission of additional documentation. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a 43-year-old employee of a federal contractor. She has been married twice. The first marriage ended in divorce in 1999. She remarried in 2002. She has two adult sons from her first marriage and four adult stepsons from her second. Applicant has about $50,000 in delinquent debt, which includes collection accounts, charged- off accounts, and two unpaid judgements. In 2002 she changed employers, resulting in loss of pay and benefits. Her current salary is $11.00 an hour. Her husband experienced a period of unemployment from March to September 2007. Applicant traces her financial problems to 1999, when she divorced. At that time she accepted several credit card offers. “Although she claimed to have paid some of the debts, she did not present any documentary evidence showing that she has paid in full, settled, or resolved any of the debts in the SOR.” Decision at 3. We have examined the Judge’s decision in light of the record as a whole. The Judge’s material findings of security concern are supported by substantial record evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. (Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.”) The Judge has drawn a rational connection between the facts found and his ultimate adverse security clearance decision. See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006). See also 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)). The Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 6. See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, 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