CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-06438.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-06438.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-06438.a1

Aug 4, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to the applicant's significant delinquent debts, primarily student loans. The applicant, representing himself, faced concerns that his financial situation posed a security risk.

The judge determined that the applicant had not demonstrated good-faith efforts to repay his overdue creditors. Furthermore, it was deemed too early to assess the potential success of any efforts the applicant had initiated to address his financial problems. These findings led to the conclusion that the applicant had not mitigated the disqualifying conditions raised under AG ¶ 20.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied, a decision that was upheld on appeal. The denial affirmed that granting a clearance was not consistent with national security interests given the unresolved financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence unless the record demonstrates otherwise.”
— ISCR Case No 07-00196 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 8, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 27, 2009
Decision dateAug 4, 2009

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Lack of Good-faith Efforts to Repay Debts as a Basis for Denial
Presumption That Judges Consider All Evidence Unless Proven Otherwise

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 significant delinquent debts. The applicant argued that the Judge did not properly weigh evidence and misapplied mitigating conditions. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge did not consider evidence favorable to his case.
Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's application of the pertinent mitigating conditions was erroneous.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's weighing of the evidence or application of mitigating conditions, affirming that the Judge's decision was sustainable based 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: The Judge concluded that Applicant had not initiated good-faith efforts to pay off his delinquent debts. A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence unless the record demonstrates otherwise. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 08-06438.a1 DATE: 08/04/2009 DATE: August 4, 2009 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-06438

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 8, 2008, 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 27, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson 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’s weighing of the evidence was erroneous and whether the Judge’s application of the pertinent mitigating conditions was erroneous. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant had significant delinquent debt, much of it for student loans. Although he has paid off two of his smaller debts, the Judge concluded that, at the close of the record, it was too early to determine if Applicant’s efforts to address his financial problems “will be successful.” Decision at 5. The Judge further stated that Applicant “has not initiated a prompt, good faith effort to repay his overdue creditors or otherwise resolve his debts.” Id. at 6. As a consequence, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not mitigated the security concerns raised in his case. Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider evidence which be believed was favorable to his case. A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence unless the record demonstrates otherwise. See, e.g., ISCR Case No 07-00196 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009); ISCR Case No. 07- 00553 at 2 (App. Bd. May 23, 2008). The Board finds no basis to conclude that the Judge’s weighing of the evidence was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). After reviewing the record, the Board concludes 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 decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the national interests to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 7. See also Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) (“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”).

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse 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