CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-09058.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-09058.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-09058.a1

deniedDec 18, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A federal contractor's executive assistant, a mother of two, was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant had numerous delinquent debts totaling $13,687, which raised trustworthiness concerns.

The administrative judge identified disqualifying conditions related to these debts. While mitigating conditions were considered, the applicant failed to provide corroboration for her claims regarding the outstanding debts. Furthermore, she did not demonstrate a responsible financial track record.

Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant had not resolved the financial concerns sufficiently, leading to the denial of her trustworthiness designation.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had numerous delinquent debts totaling $13,687.
The applicant failed to provide corroboration for her claims regarding the debts.
The applicant did not demonstrate a responsible financial track record.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not provide credible evidence of payment or financial counseling.

Key Rule Quoted

“It is appropriate for a Judge to assign diminished weight or no weight at all to an incomplete exhibit.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 8, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 30, 2009
Decision dateDec 18, 2009

Cite For

Failure to Corroborate Claims Regarding Financial Obligations
Insufficient Demonstration of Responsible Financial Behavior
Weight Assigned to Incomplete Exhibits in Trustworthiness Determinations

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

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: It is appropriate for a Judge to assign diminished weight or no weight at all to an incomplete exhibit. Adverse decision affirmed CASENO: 08-09058.a1 DATE: 12/18/2009 DATE: December 18, 2009 In Re: ------

Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 08-09058

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Judge found in Applicant’s favor for one debt, which Applicant demonstrated was not hers. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a trustworthiness designation. On May 8, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–trustworthiness 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 September 30, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following findings of fact: Applicant works for a federal contractor as an executive assistant. She has two children. Her husband is unemployed and has not worked since 2005. Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, totaling $13,687. Although Applicant denied certain debts and claimed that others were paid (either in full or in part), she provided no corroboration for these statements. The Judge considered pertinent mitigating conditions, but she concluded that Applicant had failed to meet her burden of persuasion. The Judge noted that, in addition to not corroborating her claims of payment, Applicant had not received financial counseling, had not provided a credible basis for disputing her debts, and had generally failed to demonstrate a track record of responsible action. Applicant cites to a credit report she submitted to the Judge. The Judge noted that that credit report was incomplete, comprising only the first four pages of a 22-page document. It is appropriate for a Judge to assign diminished weight, or no weight at all, to such an exhibit. In support of her appeal Applicant has submitted new matters not contained in the case record, which the Board cannot consider. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board.”). See also ADP Case No. 08-03721 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 28, 2009).

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)). In light of the entirety of the record evidence, the Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination is sustainable.

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination 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