Loading case…

ISCR 09-01321.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2010) · CASE

ISCR Case 09-01321.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-01321.a1

Feb 17, 2010· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to numerous delinquent debts totaling $79,513. The judge found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a track record of responsible actions regarding these debts.

The applicant attributed his financial issues to a job loss in 2002. However, the judge determined that the applicant's ongoing insolvency created a potential for pressure, coercion, or duress, which raised a disqualifying condition under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 19.

Ultimately, the applicant's failure to demonstrate responsible financial actions and the significant total of his delinquent debts led to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial 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 issuedJun 15, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 23, 2009
Decision dateFeb 17, 2010

Cite for

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Responsible Financial Actions
Impact of Ongoing Insolvency on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDavid M. White denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's findings regarding the cause of his financial problems were not supported by substantial evidence.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The Judge articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, demonstrating a rational connection between the facts and the conclusion reached.

Standard of review applied

Substantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decision

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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant failed to demonstrate a track record of responsible actions in regard to his debts. The Judge’s findings are based upon substantial record evidence. The Board lacks authority to hold oral argument. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-01321.a1 DATE: 02/17/2010 DATE: February 17, 2010 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-01321

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 June 15, 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 November 23, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge David M. White 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 certain of the Judge’s factual findings were supported by substantial record evidence; and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found the following: Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, totaling $79,513. After receiving interrogatories from DOHA, Applicant entered into a agreement with a credit counseling service, whereby Applicant would pay to the service $2,569 a month. After 49 months his debts were to be paid off. He has not made payments, however, due in part to a recent tax assessment from the IRS and in part to his having to make child support payments. Applicant attributes his financial problems to a job loss in 2002, in which he was “forced to quit” a position due to a conflict of interest with another company for which he was also doing work. Additionally, it was hard for him to find work after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for his good character. In resolving the case adversely to Applicant, the Judge stated that Applicant had failed to demonstrate a track record of responsible actions in regard to his debts. “The record demonstrates his ongoing inability to address his delinquent debts. Applicant’s ongoing insolvency generates continuing potential for pressure, coercion, or duress.” Decision at 7. Applicant challenges the Judge’s statement that Applicant’s having been forced to quit a job in 2002 caused his financial problems. However, the Judge’s findings about the circumstances of Applicant’s leaving his employment are based upon substantial record evidence. Furthermore, there is no basis to conclude that the Judge mis-weighed this evidence or otherwise attributed to it unwarranted significance. Applicant requests oral argument before the Board. The Board’s authority is derived from the Directive. The Directive does not authorize the Board to hold oral arguments. 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board