CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-06180.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-06180.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-06180.a1

Dec 21, 2010· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent debts. These included nearly $25,000 in student loans and an additional $134 medical debt. The applicant, representing himself, failed to provide a reply to the file of relevant material, which limited the evidence available for the Board's initial consideration regarding his efforts to address these financial obligations.

During the appeal process, the applicant submitted new evidence; however, this was not considered by the Board, in accordance with Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Consequently, the appeal was denied, and the original decision to deny the security clearance was affirmed based on the existing record. The Board found insufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns raised by the outstanding debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial 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 issuedApr 18, 2010
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldOct 1, 2010Decision made by Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr.
Decision dateDec 21, 2010Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on New Evidence Submission During Appeal
Standards for Granting Security Clearances in Relation 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 was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — 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
The Judge's adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, with a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. The adverse decision is sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealArbitrary-and-capricious reviewSubstantial-evidence review

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: The Board cannot consider the new evidence submitted on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-06180.a1 DATE: 12/21/2010 DATE: December 21, 2010 In Re: -------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-06180

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 18, 2010, 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 October 1, 2010, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., 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 is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the decision of the Judge. The Judge found that Applicant had delinquent debts arising from two student loans. These debts total nearly $25,000. Additionally, Applicant had a delinquent debt of $134 for medical services. Applicant failed to submit a reply to the file of relevant material. In the Analysis portion of the decision, the Judge noted the paucity of record evidence regarding the circumstances under which Applicant’s debts became delinquent, efforts he had made to address the debts, and other possible mitigating circumstances, such as receipt of financial counseling. In his brief, Applicant submits new evidence, concerning his medical debt and the reason his efforts to pay down the student loans were dilatory. We cannot consider this new evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board”). See also, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-05379 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 15, 2010). The record supports a conclusion 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