CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-01074 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-01074denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-01074

Oct 16, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to ten delinquent debts. The judge determined that these debts raised significant security concerns, citing the applicant's failure to provide sufficient corroborating evidence for her claims regarding the debts' origins.

Specifically, the applicant did not present a viable debt consolidation plan or provide necessary documentation to support her assertions. While the judge considered mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 21(a), (b), (c), and (d), and acknowledged disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20, the overall evidence was deemed insufficient to resolve the financial concerns.

The appeal was subsequently denied, with the board affirming that the judge's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence presented. The applicant's security clearance was therefore denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's debts were ongoing and not resolved.
AG ¶ 21(b)rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support this claim.
AG ¶ 21(c)rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemNo evidence of counseling was presented.
AG ¶ 21(d)rejectedThe Person Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve her 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 issuedApr 10, 2009
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldAug 31, 2009Decision made by Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason.
Decision dateOct 16, 2009Appeal affirmed by the board.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Expectation of Pro Se Applicants to Take Reasonable Steps to Protect Their Rights
Standard for Granting Security Clearance Based on 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. The Applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and that she was denied due process. The Board found no error in the Administrative Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — 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 contended that the Judge's adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that she was denied due process.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's decision, affirming that the adverse decision was reasonable based on the extent of Applicant's delinquent debt and the lack of sufficient mitigating 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
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

APPEARANCES

DATE: October 16, 2009 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-01074

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 April 10, 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 August 31, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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 adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. We also construe Applicant’s appeal as contending that she was denied due process. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found against Applicant on ten of twenty delinquent debts alleged in the SOR. Of those debts he stated that Applicant had provided insufficient evidence corroborating her claims that the debts resulted from unexpected illnesses in her family. He also concluded that she did not provide sufficient evidence concerning the nature of a debt consolidation plan. Applicant contends that she did not understand that she needed to provide corroborating evidence or other matters referenced by the Judge. She stated that she was never asked for such documents. “Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights under the Directive.” ISCR Case No. 05-03143 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec 20, 2006). In this case, Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record. She was provided with a copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) and notified of her opportunity to provide documentary evidence to rebut or explain the security concerns in her case. Applicant provided documentary evidence (none of which substantiated the medical explanations she had previously offered). The Judge considered Applicant’s response to the FORM, along with other record evidence. There is no reason to believe that Applicant was denied due process. In light of the Judge’s findings about the extent of Applicant’s delinquent debt and the paucity of record evidence in mitigation, his adverse decision is reasonable. His 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 6. 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 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