Loading case…

ISCR 08-06856.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal, granted (2010) · CASE

ISCR Case 08-06856.a1granted

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-06856.a1

Jan 21, 2010· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

This security clearance decision involved an engineer, a veteran employed by a defense contractor, whose clearance was initially questioned under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The concerns arose from financial difficulties linked to his wife's gambling problem and a previously dismissed bankruptcy filing.

However, the applicant demonstrated substantial rehabilitation. He systematically paid off all debts identified in the Statement of Reasons, as well as additional unlisted debts. Furthermore, he engaged in financial counseling, and his wife is actively receiving counseling for her gambling problem.

Considering these mitigating factors, specifically AG ¶ 20, and the applicant's excellent reputation for job performance, judgment, and integrity, a favorable whole-person analysis was conducted. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was GRANTED.

Conditions referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20appliedMitigating ConditionsThe applicant demonstrated significant rehabilitation efforts.

Key rule quoted

“The Board need not agree with a Judge’s decision in order to find it sustainable.”
ISCR Case No. 06-23881 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 2, 2007)

Procedural posture

SOR issuedFeb 25, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 14, 2009
Decision dateJan 21, 2010

Cite for

Favorable Whole-person Analysis Under Guideline F
Significant Rehabilitation Efforts in Financial Cases
Affirmation of Favorable Credibility Determinations by Judges

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 Department Counsel challenged the Administrative Judge's favorable ruling based on credibility determinations. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran 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
The Judge substituted a favorable credibility determination for record evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's decision and affirmed the favorable clearance based on unchallenged findings supporting a favorable whole-person analysis.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewNo de-novo re-decisionDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan (Chair)
Jeffrey D. Billett
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 unchallenged findings support the Judge’ the Judge’s favorable whole person analysis. The Board need not agree withe Judge’s decision to find it sustainable. Favorable decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-06856.a1 DATE: 01/21/2010 DATE: January 21, 2010 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-06856

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Nichole Noel, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Thomas E. Higgins, Esq. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On February 25, 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 October 14, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran granted Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Department Counsel appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Department Counsel raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge substituted a favorable credibility determination for record evidence. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant is an engineer working for a Defense contractor. He is the deputy chief engineer on a major weapons system, a position he has held with defense contractors since 1984. A graduate of a service academy, he served as an officer and is a veteran of the Vietnam War. Applicant’s wife developed a “severe gambling problem,” which resulted in financial difficulties, including foreclosure on his home. Applicant and his wife filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, but it was dismissed due to Applicant’s inability to maintain payments. Applicant’s SOR listed several delinquent debts, including the mortgage on their home, and the bankruptcy action. Applicant has paid off the debts listed in the SOR, as well as seven additional ones not listed. He has received financial counseling, and his wife is receiving counseling for her gambling problem. Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for his job performance, his judgement, and his integrity. These unchallenged findings support a favorable whole-person analysis. Accordingly, we conclude that the Judge’s decision is sustainable. “The Board need not agree with a Judge’s decision in order to find it sustainable.” ISCR Case No. 06-23881 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 2, 2007).

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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board