CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-08901.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-08901.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-08901.a1

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

Summary

A defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent debts from consumer purchases and medical expenses. The applicant's personal circumstances, including his wife's illness, contributed to these financial difficulties.

While the applicant demonstrated conscientiousness and reliability in other areas, the judge found he failed to establish a consistent track record of responsible debt management. Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20(a) was raised, and although Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 20(c) was considered, it was not sufficient to overcome the security concerns.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant did not meet the burden of persuasion for mitigation. The denial emphasized the paramount importance of national security interests in determining clearance eligibility, outweighing the applicant's personal circumstances and other positive attributes.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge found that the applicant did not demonstrate a track record of responsible actions regarding his 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 issuedFeb 3, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 9, 2009
Decision dateJan 7, 2010

Cite For

Importance of Demonstrating Responsible Management of Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Rebuttable Presumption That a Judge Has Considered All Evidence
National Security Interests as a Standard for Clearance Eligibility

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 misapplied mitigating conditions and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the application of the law or the assessment of evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowWilford H. Ross — 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 decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended 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 application of the law or in the findings of fact, affirming that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a rational connection between the facts and the decision made.

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 a track record of responsible actions in regard to his delinquent debts. There is a rebuttable presumption that the Judge has considered all the evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-08901.a1 DATE: 01/07/2010 DATE: January 7, 2010 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-08901

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 February 3, 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 9, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross 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 application of the pertinent mitigating conditions was erroneous and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant is an employee of a defense contractor. He is married. He has significant delinquent debts for such things as consumer purchases, medical expenses, telephone bills, credit cards, etc. Applicant enjoys a reputation for conscientiousness and reliability. The Judge noted that Applicant’s financial problems were affected his wife’s illness. However, the Judge concluded that Applicant had failed to meet his burden of persuasion as to mitigation. Specifically, the Judge stated that Applicant had not demonstrated a track record of responsible actions in regard to his many debts. Applicant argues that the Judge failed to consider his family’s circumstances and his security history. There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge has considered all the record evidence. 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). Applicant’s arguments are insufficient to rebut that presumption. Furthermore, the Judge discussed Applicant’s family’s circumstances. Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge failed to consider the pertinent record evidence. 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 interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 9. “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