CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-11995.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-11995.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-11995.a1

May 10, 2010· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to numerous delinquent debts and insufficient evidence to mitigate these concerns. The disqualifying condition raised was AG ¶ 20.

The applicant had multiple outstanding debts, including medical bills and student loans. While she cited personal hardships, the judge found a lack of corroborating evidence to support her claims regarding these debts. Furthermore, the applicant did not provide documentation of debt counseling or demonstrate progress in managing her financial situation.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant failed to show sufficient resolution of her financial issues, leading to the denial of her appeal and the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedAug 11, 2009
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldFeb 26, 2010Decision made by Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny.
Decision dateMay 10, 2010Appeal affirmed by the Board.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Impact of Personal Circumstances on Financial Responsibility
Standard for Granting Security Clearance Related to National Security Interests

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 argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious due to her choice not to have a hearing. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no error in the Judge's conclusions regarding the applicant's financial situation.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowClaude R. Heiny — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

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.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's decision, affirming that the adverse decision was based on substantial evidence regarding the applicant's delinquent debts and lack of progress in resolving financial difficulties.

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
Jeffrey D. Billett
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 argues that her decision not to have a hearing appears to be the main reason she was denied a clearance. Considering the record in this case and the Judge’s decision as a whole, Applicant has failed to establish error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-11995.a1 DATE: 05/10/2010 DATE: May 10, 2010 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-11995

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 August 11, 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 decision on the written record. On February 26, 2010, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny 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 adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, for such things as medical bills, telephone services, student loans, etc. Applicant has experienced illness in the recent past and is divorced, circumstances which were beyond her control and which affected her financial situation. However, the Judge noted a paucity of record evidence addressing many of the questions arising from her case, for example corroboration for her claims that (1) certain debts were not legitimately hers and (2) she had paid certain debts. The Judge also noted that the record contained no evidence that Applicant had received counseling or that she had her debts under control. Accordingly, he concluded that Applicant had failed to mitigate the security concerns in her case. Applicant asserts that she made the unfortunate choice of not requesting an in-person meeting (hearing), and that not doing so appears to be the main reason she was denied a clearance. The Judge did indicate in his decision that he was unable to evaluate Applicant’s demeanor and appearance, and was unable to form a positive determination as to her truthfulness. However, the Judge also stated that even if he found for her in these matters, there is no evidence of payment on delinquent debts. Giving due consideration to this last qualifying statement, the Board concludes that the Judge’s ultimate adverse security clearance decision was not based on any negative inferences drawn from the mere fact that Applicant elected to have her case considered on the written record. Considering the record and the Judge’s decision as a whole, the Board concludes that the Judge’s decision is sustainable based on objective evidence of Applicant’s delinquent debt history and her inability to make significant progress in resolving her financial difficulties. Applicant has not established error on the part of the Judge. 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 adverse decision is sustainable on this record. “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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board