CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-01642.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-01642.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-01642.a1

Jul 7, 2010· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) for an applicant, a widow with three children, due to approximately $86,000 in delinquent debts. The decision cited Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19, indicating that the applicant's financial issues raised security concerns.

Despite previous favorable decisions, the applicant did not demonstrate a reasonable effort to resolve her debts. Specifically, she failed to make consistent monthly payments toward discharging them. Furthermore, two of these debts were outstanding from a prior DOHA adjudication, despite her earlier promises to address them.

While Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 20 was considered, it was not sufficient to overcome the security concerns. The applicant's failure to consistently address her financial obligations, particularly the recurring nature of some debts, led to the denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not provide sufficient proof of efforts to mitigate her debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 20, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 20, 2010
Decision dateJul 7, 2010

Cite For

Failure to Demonstrate Reasonable Efforts to Address Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Impact of Previous Favorable Decisions on Current Financial Obligations
The Necessity of Clearance Being Consistent with National Security Interests

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 seeking a security clearance who was denied due to unresolved delinquent debts. The applicant argued that the Judge erred in applying mitigating conditions and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no error in the application of the law or the facts considered.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — 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 erred in his application of the mitigating conditions.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's adverse decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, with a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. The adverse decision was sustainable on the record.

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 failed to demonstrate that she is making a reasonable effort to address her delinquent debts. Two of the debts on the SOR were holdovers from a previous DOHA adjudication. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-01642.a1 DATE: 07/07/2010 DATE: July 7, 2010 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-01642

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 August 20, 2009, 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 April 20, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in his application of the mitigating conditions and whether the Judge’s adverse decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is employed by a Defense contractor. A widow, she has three children. She had financial difficulties following her husband’s death in the late 1990s. As a consequence, DOHA issued her a SOR in the early 2000s. She went to a hearing, and the Judge issued a favorable decision, based in part upon her promises to pay her delinquent debts. In the mid 2000s, Applicant experienced seven months of unemployment. She filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection, but the court dismissed the petition due to her failure to make consistent payments. Applicant currently has about $86,000 worth of delinquent debts. Though he acknowledged that her financial problems were affected by circumstances outside her control, such as unemployment, the Judge concluded that she had failed to demonstrate consistent monthly payments toward discharging her debts. He also noted that two of her delinquencies were at issue in her earlier DOHA case, despite her promises at that time to pay them. He concluded that Applicant had failed to mitigate the security concerns in her case. Applicant deserves credit for trying to earn a college degree while working and raising children. However, she has too much outstanding debt and offered too little proof that she is satisfying it for me to conclude it no longer constitutes a security concern, given the amount that remains outstanding. Upon considering Applicant’s case in the context of the whole-person concept, I conclude that her application for a security clearance must be denied. Decision at 6. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” 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 adverse decision is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).

ORDER

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