CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-00860.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-00860.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-00860.a1

Apr 8, 2011· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A service member's security clearance application was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of numerous delinquent debts. The judge identified disqualifying conditions, specifically the applicant's failure to meet financial obligations and a pattern of irresponsible financial conduct.

While the applicant's personal circumstances were acknowledged as mitigating factors, the judge found insufficient evidence of responsible action toward debt repayment. The applicant did not provide corroborating evidence for claims of disputing some debts and failed to utilize periods of employment to address his financial obligations.

Ultimately, the adverse decision was affirmed, emphasizing the applicant's lack of demonstrated effort to resolve his debts. The clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 20(c)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge found insufficient evidence of responsible action regarding debts.
AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's personal circumstances did not mitigate the financial issues.

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 4, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 18, 2011
Decision dateApr 8, 2011

Cite For

Failure to Demonstrate Responsible Action Regarding Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Impact of Personal Circumstances on Financial Responsibility
Standard for Granting Security Clearance Related 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 involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge mis-weighed evidence and made an arbitrary decision. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMartin H. Mogul — 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 failed to consider all of the record evidence or mis-weighed the record evidence.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were sustainable based on the evidence presented, and that the Judge articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, maintaining a rational connection between the facts and the choice made.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

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’s debts were affected by the spending habits of his ex-wife as well as periods of unemployment, but the Judge concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to his debts. The Judge’s conclusion is sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-00860.a1 DATE: 04/08/2011 DATE: April 8, 2011 In Re: ----------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-00860

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 4, 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

FOOTNOTES

1 The SOR alleged debts for such things as medical expenses, utility services, cable services, a repossessed vehicle, etc.

2 We note Government Exhibit 3, Answers to Interrogatories, dated March 23, 2010. This exhibit contains a summary of Applicant’s security clearance interview, conducted in April 2009. At the time of the interview, he was serving a period of active duty with the Air National Guard. Applicant stated to the interviewer that he cleared about $3,600 a month, that he lived on post, did not have a car, and ate all his meals in the dining hall. This evidence suggests that, at the time of the interview, Applicant’s day to day expenses were relatively minimal and that he had the financial capacity to address at least some of his debts. It underscores the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had not taken advantage of his periods of employment to begin paying down debt . requested a hearing. On January 18, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed the decision. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge failed to consider all of the record evidence or mis-weighed the record evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the decision of the Judge. The Judge found that Applicant was previously married and is currently going through a divorce from his second wife. He has served in the U.S. Army and also in the Air National Guard. He is seeking a clearance in connection with possible future employment in the Defense sector. Applicant had numerous delinquent debts, which he had neither paid nor demonstrated an effort at repayment.1 Applicant’s debts were affected by the spending habits of his ex-wife and his current one, as well as periods of unemployment. Applicant has received numerous potential job offers. He received a number of medals and citations from his military service and received favorable efficiency reports. In the Analysis portion of the Decision, the Judge noted Applicant’s unemployment and the spending that Applicant attributed to his wives. However, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to his debts, had not provided evidence to corroborate his claims to have disputed some of the debts, and that he made no effort to resolve his debts during periods in which he was employed.2 Decision at 7-8. Applicant points to record evidence of his military record as demonstrating his worthiness for a clearance. However, the Judge made explicit findings on this matter. Additionally, he found in Applicant’s favor for several of the debts alleged in the SOR. However, given the extent of Applicant’s delinquent debt and the paucity of record evidence demonstrating an effort at repayment, the Judge’s ultimate conclusion that Applicant had failed to meet his burden of persuasion as to mitigation is sustainable. Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge failed to consider all of the record evidence or that he mis-weighed the evidence. See ISCR Case No. 09- 03621 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 3, 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 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