CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-05264.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-05264.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-05264.a1

Feb 10, 2011· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, represented by counsel, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to a lengthy history of unmet financial obligations. The judge identified disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19, noting that the applicant still had significant outstanding debts at the time of the decision.

Despite the applicant's claims that these financial issues were beyond his control, the judge found insufficient mitigating evidence. A thorough whole-person analysis was conducted, which ultimately led to the determination that the applicant's financial history posed an unacceptable security risk.

The initial denial was subsequently affirmed on appeal, upholding the decision to deny the security clearance based on the persistent financial concerns and the lack of adequate mitigation.

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 issuedDec 15, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 28, 2010
Decision dateFeb 10, 2011

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Whole-person Analysis in Security Clearance Decisions
Sustainability of Judge's Conclusions in Light of 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 was regarding the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious due to circumstances beyond his control. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the applicant's financial issues were ongoing and that the Judge's analysis was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowRobert Robinson Gales — denied the clearance (split findings)

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 decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board concluded that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.

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
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’s lengthy history of not meeting financial obligations and the ongoing nature of his debts support the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had not demonstrated mitigation. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 09-05264.a1 DATE: 02/10/2011 DATE: February 10, 2011 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-05264

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Tobe Lev, Esq. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 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 October 28, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. Applicant contends that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because Applicant’s financial problems were due to circumstances beyond his control and the Judge misapplied the whole-person concept. Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. 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. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 2007). 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. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). In reaching his decision, the Judge noted that conditions beyond Applicant’s control had contributed to his financial problems, but reasonably explained why Applicant had failed to act responsibly in addressing those problems. Decision at 12. The Judge also conducted a detailed and extensive whole-person analysis of Applicant’s situation which the Board concludes is sustainable. Decision at 13-15. In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a lengthy history of not meeting financial obligations. At the time the case was submitted for decision, Applicant still had significant outstanding debts, and was still trying to resolve his financial problems. In light of the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that those problems were still ongoing. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-07747 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2007). The Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the length and seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible application of relevant conditions and factors. He found in favor of Applicant with respect to nine of the SOR factual allegations, but reasonably explained why the mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome all of the government’s security concerns. The Board does not review a case de novo. After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his 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 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). Therefore, the Judge’s unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision of the Judge 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