CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-07453.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-07453.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-07453.a1

Apr 1, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 43-year-old Office Administrator for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to approximately $21,000 in delinquent debt. The applicant presented several mitigating circumstances, including job layoffs and a divorce, which were considered under AG ¶ 21(a), (b), (c), and (d).

However, the judge determined that these circumstances were insufficient to demonstrate a clear and consistent path toward resolving the outstanding financial obligations. While the applicant had recently engaged a credit counseling service, this action was given less weight than a demonstrated history of debt repayment.

Ultimately, the significant delinquent debt, coupled with the insufficient demonstration of a plan to resolve it, led to the denial of the security clearance. The decision highlighted the need for a more established pattern of financial responsibility to overcome the disqualifying conditions raised under AG ¶ 20.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not Recent.The applicant's financial issues were ongoing and not resolved.
AG ¶ 21(b)rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Beyond the Person's Control.Job layoffs and divorce were considered but did not sufficiently mitigate the financial concerns.
AG ¶ 21(c)appliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem.The applicant sought credit counseling after the hearing.
AG ¶ 21(d)rejectedThe Person Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts.The applicant's efforts were not viewed as sufficient to demonstrate a commitment to resolving the debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“A party’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 that the Judge’s decision is erroneous.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 4, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 2, 2009
Decision dateApr 1, 2009

Cite For

Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Weight of Evidence in Security Clearance Decisions
Criteria for Evaluating Financial Responsibility in Security Clearance Cases

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 contested the Judge's findings regarding her burden of persuasion for mitigation. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the weighing of evidence.

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 argued that the Judge's conclusion regarding her burden of persuasion for mitigation was erroneous.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's decision, affirming that the evidence was weighed appropriately and that the conclusions reached were not arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
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: A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence or an ability to argue for an a different interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge’s decision is erroneous. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-07453.a1 DATE: 04/01/2009 DATE: April 1, 2009 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-07453

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 September 4, 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 February 2, 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 issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had failed to meet her burden of persuasion as to mitigation was erroneous. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a 43-year-old Office Administrator for a defense contractor. She holds a B.A. degree in business administration. Applicant has delinquent debt of approximately $21,000. She has experienced job layoffs in the past and, at the close of the record, was going through a divorce. In her current job, Applicant brings home around $620 per week. She advised the Judge that, once the divorce court awards her child support from her spouse, she will be able to devote more of her take-home pay to addressing her debts. After the hearing, but before the close of the record, Applicant submitted an exhibit demonstrating that she had hired a credit counseling service to assist her with her debts. Applicant’s references describe her as hardworking, trustworthy, and of good character. Applicant appears to challenge the weight which the Judge assigned her mitigating evidence concerning her divorce, unemployment, and efforts to obtain credit counseling. However, a party’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 ins 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). For example, Applicant’s having sought credit counseling following the hearing is entitled to less weight than would a demonstrated history of debt repayment. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-13041 (App. Bd. Sep. 19, 2008). After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for her 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 interest to grant or continue a security clearance for 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; Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed; James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board