CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-01188.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-01188.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-01188.a1

Jun 15, 2011· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

A 46-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to over $31,000 in delinquent debt. This debt originated from a job layoff and subsequent unemployment. The appeal board affirmed the denial, citing the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence of efforts to repay her debts or demonstrate good judgment in managing her financial issues.

Specifically, the board found the applicant's belief that charged-off debt was equivalent to forgiveness to be concerning, particularly given her professional background in the financial sector. This perspective, combined with the lack of documented efforts to resolve the outstanding financial obligations, led to the conclusion that the disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20 were not mitigated.

Ultimately, the applicant's appeal was unsuccessful, and the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The adverse impact of an unfavorable security clearance decision is not a relevant consideration in evaluating security clearance eligibility.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 14, 2010
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldApr 5, 2011Decision made by Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross.
Decision dateJun 15, 2011Appeal affirmed by the board.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Significant Delinquent Debt Under Guideline F
Rejection of Claims of Debt Forgiveness as Unconvincing
Non-consideration of New Evidence on Appeal Regarding Financial Circumstances.

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 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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowWilford H. Ross — 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
Applicant argued 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 decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. The adverse impact of an unfavorable decision was not a relevant consideration in evaluating security clearance eligibility.

Standard of review applied

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

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 DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. The adverse impact of unfavorable security clearance decision is not a relevant consideration in evaluating security clearance eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-01188.a1 DATE: 06/15/2011 DATE: June 15, 2011 In Re: -----

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-01188

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 September 14, 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 April 5, 2011, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross 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 was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm the decision. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a 46-year-old employee of a Defense contractor seeking a clearance in connection with her job. In the past, Applicant experienced a job layoff followed by two years of unemployment. The Judge found that she has over $31,000 in delinquent debt, for such things as medical bills, a line of credit from a bank, tuition, etc. The debt for the line of credit is in the amount of $26,152. Applicant “states that this debt has been ‘charged off’ and, therefore, forgiven.” Decision at 2. The Judge stated that Applicant “submitted no character references or other evidence tending to establish good judgment, trustworthiness, or reliability. I was unable to evaluate her credibility, demeanor, or character in person since she elected to have her case decided without a hearing.” Decision at 4. In the Analysis portion of the Decision, the Judge noted that Applicant’s period of unemployment was “the primary cause of her financial problems.” Decision at 7. He stated that the record did not contain sufficient evidence of Applicant’s efforts at repayment or otherwise to demonstrate resolution of her debts. He characterized Applicant’s belief in the equivalence of debt charge off and debt forgiveness as “disturbing,” in light of record evidence that she had worked “in the financial sector.”1 Decision at 6. He concluded that Applicant had failed to meet her burden of persuasion as to mitigation. Applicant has submitted new evidence in support of her appeal, for example satisfaction of two of the five debts the Judge found against her, occurring after the close of the record. She also has included information to the effect that she will be laid off again should her clearance be denied. We cannot consider this new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board”). In any event, the adverse impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a relevant or material consideration in evaluating his or her security clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-07528 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2009).

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 Item 6, Answers to Interrogatories, at 7 states that Applicant had previously been employed by a bank. It was from this job that she was laid off.