CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-03946.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-03946.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-03946.a1

Dec 19, 2008· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant and ongoing financial problems. The applicant admitted to owing $31,000 across 42 past due or delinquent debts.

The judge determined that these financial issues were ongoing and had not been sufficiently mitigated, citing Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19. While Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 20 was considered, it was not found to be applicable in this case.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's financial situation presented an unacceptable security risk, leading to the denial of the clearance. This decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal, with the Board finding no error in the judge's initial determination.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge weighed the mitigating evidence against the length and seriousness of the disqualifying conduct.

Key Rule Quoted

“The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 23, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 26, 2008
Decision dateDec 19, 2008

Cite For

Ongoing Financial Problems Under Guideline F
Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Issues
Weighing of Evidence in Security Clearance Decisions

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 capricious, asserting that her financial issues were due to circumstances beyond her control. 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 belowClaude R. Heiny — 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 argued that the Judge's adverse clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge reasonably concluded that Applicant's financial problems were ongoing and that the mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome the government's security concerns.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Michael D. Hipple
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: A the time the case was submitted for decision, Applicant admitted owing $31,000 on 42 past due or delinquent debts. The Judge could reasonably conclude that Applicant’s financial problems were ongoing. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-03946.a1 DATE: 12/19/2008 DATE: December 19, 2008 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-03946

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, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the The Judge’s favorable finding as to SOR paragraph 1(jj) is not at issue on appeal. In that regard, the Judge noted the following: “In November 2007, she started looking for a financial management company to assist her with her finances and found one in June 2008. (Tr. 40) Applicant agreed to pay the . . . company $1,000 per month with the first payment due July 15, 2008. [However, Applicant] postponed the first payment when her car was involved in an accident requiring [a] $2,000 repair. (Tr. 19) She provided no documentation showing payment on August 15, 2008. She is currently waiting for statements from [some of] her . . . creditors to add to the repayment schedule. There is no documentation as to which debts are covered by the repayment agreement.” Decision at 3-4. 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 August 26, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1 Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. Applicant asks that the Judge’s adverse decision be reversed, asserting that her financial problems were the result of circumstances beyond her control and that she is in the process of resolving those problems. Applicant has not demonstrated the Judge erred. 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. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 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 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. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a lengthy history of not meeting financial obligations. At the time the case was submitted for decision, Applicant admitted owing approximately $31,000 on 42 past due or delinquent accounts, and was still in the process of trying to resolve her financial problems. In light of the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that those 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 conditions and factors. He reasonably explained why the mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome the government’s security concerns. The Board does not review a case de novo. The favorable 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 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007). After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his 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)). Therefore, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision under Guideline 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: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board