A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 09-06180.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Dec 21, 2010 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance issues under Guideline F due to significant delinquent debts totaling nearly $25,000 from student loans and an additional $134 medical debt. The appeal was denied as the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns, and the new evidence submitted was not considered by the Board. The decision was affirmed based on the existing record, which lacked details on the applicant's efforts to address the debts.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had significant delinquent debts totaling nearly $25,000 from student loans and an additional $134 medical debt.
- The applicant failed to submit a reply to the file of relevant material, limiting the evidence available for consideration.
- The new evidence submitted on appeal was not considered by the Board, as per Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2010-04-18
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2010-10-01 Decision made by Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr.
- Decision date
- 2010-12-21 Appeal 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
The appeal was from an adverse security clearance decision based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that new evidence submitted on appeal could not be considered.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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