CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-09569.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-09569.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-09569.a1

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

Summary

A 34-year-old male applicant was denied a U.S. DOHA security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to numerous delinquent debts. The decision was based on the presence of disqualifying conditions outlined in Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 20, which raised significant security concerns regarding his financial stability.

Although the applicant presented evidence of personal hardships, including health issues and family deaths, these were considered under AG ¶ 21 but ultimately deemed insufficient to mitigate the financial concerns. The judge found that the applicant did not demonstrate a clear plan to resolve his outstanding debts or establish financial stability.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied. The decision was upheld, citing substantial evidence of the applicant's ongoing financial instability and the unresolved nature of his delinquent debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's evidence of personal hardships did not demonstrate a direct impact on his financial situation.

Key Rule Quoted

“The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.”
— Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 27, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 14, 2009
Decision dateJan 7, 2010

Cite For

Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Substantial Evidence in Security Clearance Decisions
Rejection of Personal Hardship as a Mitigating Factor in Financial Considerations

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 who was denied a security clearance due to numerous delinquent debts. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious, claiming that his evidence of health problems and family deaths should have mitigated the security concerns. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — 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 contends that the Judge's adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge reasonably explained why the evidence presented by the Applicant was not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns. The decision is supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
William S. Fields

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 had numerous delinquent debts. He presented evidence of health problems and deaths within his family. However, the Judge reasonably explained why that evidence was not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns in Applicant’s case. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-09569.a1 DATE: 01/07/2010 DATE: January 7, 2010 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-09569

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 March 27, 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 LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Specifically, Applicant contends that the Judge should have found the government’s security concerns to be mitigated. The Judge made the following relevant findings of fact: Applicant is 34 years of age. Applicant married for the first time in 1998, at which time his wife was working. Between 1999 and 2005, Applicant and his wife leased or purchased several expensive motor vehicles, accumulating significant debt to do so. Applicant’s wife ceased working in 2003, and they divorced in 2006. While Applicant’s wife worked, she paid the utilities and one car note. After she stopped working, Applicant was responsible for all their debts. Beginning in 2000, Applicant and his wife received counseling from an elder in their church. The elder advised Applicant to work toward being debt- free. In 2004, Applicant hired an attorney for assistance with one debt. At the time of their divorce, Applicant and his wife surrendered four motor vehicles to their creditors, with each to be responsible for the deficiencies on two vehicles. After his divorce, Applicant refinanced his home in order to carry out his property settlement with his wife. Applicant used some of the equity in the home to pay off one large automobile debt. The mortgage Applicant obtained at that time was an adjustable- rate mortgage. In October 2007, Applicant’s mortgage payment increased from $2,400 to $3,200 per month, and Applicant was unable to make the increased payments. In September 2007, Applicant contacted a credit and financial counseling service about his financial situation. Following their advice, Applicant surrendered two vehicles to the lien holders, incurring deficiency debts of approximately $31,000 and $46,000. Among the debts listed in the SOR, Applicant satisfied a judgment on a credit card debt of $410 in January 2009. In July 2009, Applicant achieved modification of the first and second mortgages on his home. In August 2009, the month when the hearing was held, Applicant paid two small delinquent telephone bills and established payment plans to repay in the future a credit card debt and the two large automobile deficiencies noted above, as well as another automobile deficiency of over $41,000. In mitigation of his financial situation, Applicant presented evidence regarding the deaths of his parents and his own health problems, but Applicant did not demonstrate that those matters affected his finances. Applicant has obtained a part-time job as a musician at his church, and his pastor considers him a person of integrity and exemplary moral character. The Appeal Board’s review of the Judge’s findings of facts is limited to determining if they are supported by substantial evidence–“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. “This is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966). Applicant contends that the Judge did not give sufficient weight to his evidence of mitigation. As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. 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 in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-10079 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 10, 2009). In this case, the Judge discussed in detail the mitigating evidence that Applicant presented and explained why it was not sufficient to overcome the government’s security concerns. The Judge’s decision is sustainable.

ORDER

The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board