CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-07440.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-07440.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-07440.a1

Jun 24, 2011· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

A project manager and former U.S. Marine was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had 20 delinquent debts and admitted to living beyond his means, which raised disqualifying conditions under both guidelines.

Specifically, the applicant failed to provide corroborating evidence for his claims disputing some of the debts. This lack of substantiation, combined with the significant number of delinquent accounts, contributed to the adverse decision.

The judge determined that no mitigating conditions were applicable under either Guideline F or Guideline E, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

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 issuedMay 27, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 29, 2011
Decision dateJun 24, 2011

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Irresponsibility
Lack of Corroboration for Disputed Debts
Failure to Demonstrate Responsible Action Regarding Debts

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 delinquencies and personal conduct issues. The applicant argued that the Judge did not consider all evidence regarding his efforts to manage his debts. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge did not take into account all of the record evidence, such as his efforts to pay off his debts and his efforts to further his education.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the Judge considered all relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, demonstrating 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

Jean E. Smallin
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; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant has 20 delinquents and admits to having lived beyond his means. He provided no corroboration for claims that he has disputed some of his debts. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-07440.a1 DATE: 06/24/2011 DATE: June 24, 2011 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-07440

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 May 27, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On April 29, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, 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 considered all of the record evidence. Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the Judge’s decision. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a project manager employed by a Defense contractor. He served in the U.S. Marine Corps and has held a security clearance since 1999. Divorced, Applicant has two children, for whom he is required to pay child support. Applicant has 20 delinquent debts. He demonstrated that some were paid off and that others were duplicates. However, most of his debts have not been paid. Applicant divorced in 2002 and experienced unemployment from February to August 2008. However, he also admitted that he has lived beyond his means. He has consulted credit counselors, although he began to work with the more recent of the two just prior to the hearing. Applicant provided no corroboration for his assertion that he disputed some of his debts. On his security clearance application (SCA), Applicant answered “no” to questions asking about any history of adverse judgments, collection accounts, charged-off accounts, accounts 180 days past due or accounts currently over 90 days past due. These “no” answers were not true. Although, in his answer to the SOR, Applicant denied that these answers were deliberately false, he later acknowledged that to be the case.1 Decision at 3. In the Analysis portion of the Decision, the Judge concluded that Applicant had failed to demonstrate the applicability of any of the Guideline F mitigating conditions. Though acknowledging that the divorce and unemployment were beyond Applicant’s control, the Judge stated that Applicant had failed to demonstrate responsible action in regard to his debts. Neither had he demonstrated that his finances are under control or that he has a plan to get them under control. The Judge also concluded that Applicant has failed to demonstrate the applicability of any Guideline E mitigating condition. Applicant contends that the Judge did not take into account all of the record evidence, such as his efforts to pay off his debts and his efforts to further his education. However, a Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-01168 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 22, 2011). Applicant’s presentation on appeal is not sufficient to rebut that presumption. 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). See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, 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

FOOTNOTES

1 See Letter, dated December 9, 2010: “I . . . would like to apologize for my lack of integrity while submitting my E-Qip Questionnaire in 2009. I shouldn’t have withheld information from the government[.]”