CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-09626.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-09626.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-09626.a1

Aug 5, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance primarily due to three delinquent debts, which raised concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). Specifically, Disqualifying Condition F3 (failure to meet financial obligations) and E2 (deliberate misrepresentation or omission) were cited.

While Mitigating Conditions F2 (good-faith effort to resolve debt) and F3 (debt not recent or isolated) were considered, the applicant did not meet the burden of persuasion to demonstrate their applicability. The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the judge's whole-person analysis was adequate and found no error in the original decision.

Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
E2raisedDeliberate Misrepresentation of Relevant Facts

Mitigating

F2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support this claim.
F3rejectedThe Person Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant did not demonstrate good faith efforts to resolve his debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“A judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence, and a party’s differing interpretation of that evidence is not sufficient to rebut that presumption.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 12, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 17, 2009
Decision dateAug 5, 2009

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Presumption of Evidence Consideration by Judges
Insufficient Demonstration of Good Faith Efforts in Debt Resolution

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 was from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant argued that the judge erred in weighing evidence and in the whole-person analysis. The Board affirmed the judge's decision, finding no harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge erred in his application of the pertinent mitigating conditions.
Whole-person analysis — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's whole-person analysis was erroneous.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's application of the pertinent mitigating conditions or in the whole-person analysis, affirming the adverse decision based on substantial evidence.

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
Michael D. Hipple
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; Guideline E DIGEST: A judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence, and a party’s differing interpretation of that evidence is not sufficient to rebut that presumption. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-09626.a1 DATE: 08/05/2009 DATE: August 5, 2009 In Re: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-09626

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 December 12, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On June 17, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola 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 erred in his application of the pertinent mitigating conditions and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant had three delinquent debts, which raised Guideline F security concerns.1 He concluded that Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion as to mitigation. The Board construes Applicant’s brief as contending that the Judge did not consider the entirety of the record evidence or that he did not properly weigh the evidence. A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence, and Applicant’s differing interpretation of the evidence, as presented in his appeal brief, is not sufficient to rebut that presumption. See, e.g., ISCR Case No 07-00196 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009) and ISCR Case No. 07-00553 at 2 (App. Bd. May 23, 2008). The Judge’s descriptions of Applicant’s testimony as to the delinquent debts is a fair summary of the text. Furthermore, the record provides no basis to conclude that the Judge weighed the evidence in 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). The Board notes that the Judge’s discussion of his whole-person analysis is brief. Nonetheless, we cannot conclude on this record that it is erroneous. 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 national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 8. 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: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 The Judge’s findings for Applicant under the remaining portions of paragraph 1 of the SOR, and paragraph 2, are not at issue in this appeal.