CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-03668.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-03668.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-03668.a1

Oct 5, 2012· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor with a Bachelor's degree in Information Technology Management was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from numerous delinquent debts and a lack of demonstrated financial stability. The applicant admitted to most of the allegations detailed in the Statement of Reasons, which included disqualifying conditions related to a history of not meeting financial obligations and an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts.

While the applicant made some efforts toward debt repayment, the judge found her overall financial presentation disorganized and her understanding of her financial situation insufficient. Mitigating conditions, such as the debts not being recent and the applicant having initiated some efforts to resolve them, were considered.

However, these efforts were not enough to overcome the concerns regarding responsible financial management. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of responsible financial management, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not demonstrate a track record of financial stability.
AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's efforts to manage her debts were insufficient to mitigate security concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“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 issuedDec 22, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 31, 2012
Decision dateOct 5, 2012

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Instability Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Responsible Financial Management
Disorganized Presentation Can Negatively Impact Credibility in Hearings

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 a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant admitted most of the allegations but contested the adverse findings. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's assessment of the evidence and the applicant's financial situation.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowWilford H. Ross — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

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 affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, including 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

Jeffrey D. Billett
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 Government’s burden of producing evidence arises only in regard to controverted SOR allegations. It has no such burden regarding those that an applicant has admitted. Applicant admitted all but 7 of the 48 SOR allegations. The Judge resolved some of the controverted allegations for Applicant. The controverted allegations which the Judge found against Applicant were supported by Applicant’s credit reports. Adverse decision affirmed CASENO: 10-03668.a1 DATE: 10/05/2012 DATE: October 5, 2012 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-03668

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 December 22, 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 hearing. On May 31, 2012, after the hearing, 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 Judge’s decision. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant has a Bachelor’s degree in Information Technology Management and works for a Defense contractor. She seeks to retain a security clearance. Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, for such things as Federal and state taxes, medical expenses, telephone services, a repossessed car, etc. Her financial problems began around 2004, when she began a two-year period of unemployment due to medical problems. She also suffered a car accident in 2009, which added to her medical difficulties. Applicant contends that she has consolidated and paid most of the medical debts, although she provided no corroboration. She has economized in her lifestyle, by moving to a smaller apartment, leasing a cheaper car, and making other changes that permit a faster repayment of debts. However, the Judge noted that more than a year had elapsed between the issuance of her SOR and the hearing in her case. Nevertheless, Applicant appeared to lack knowledge about many of her debts. Moreover, she provided no evidence about her job performance or character. In the Analysis, the Judge noted Applicant’s unemployment and medical problems. However, he concluded that she had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to her debts. He characterized her presentation at the hearing as disorganized and her evidence as fragmentary. He stated that she had not received financial counseling. Although Applicant had demonstrated payment of some of her debts, she has not established a track record of financial stability. The Judge resolved certain debts in Applicant’s favor but he concluded that, for the balance of the debts alleged in the SOR, Applicant had not met her burden of persuasion. Applicant argues that her credit reports did not contain accurate information and that many of the debts were duplicative of one another. To the extent that she is arguing that the Government did not meet its burden of producing evidence of security concern, we note that this burden arises only in regard to SOR allegations that are controverted. Directive ¶ E3.1.14. In a DOHA proceeding, the Government must present substantial evidence of controverted allegations but assumes no such burden regarding those that an applicant has admitted. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-02087 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 20, 2012). In the case before us, Applicant has admitted all but 7 of the 48 allegations contained in her SOR. The Judge resolved some of the controverted allegations in Applicant’s favor. Accordingly, those are not relevant to this appeal issue. Those controverted allegations which the Judge found against Applicant were supported by the contents of Applicant’s credit reports, submitted as Government Exhibits 4 through 8. Credit reports are generally sufficient to establish the Government’s prima facie case of Guideline F security concerns. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-20327 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2006). Accordingly, the Government has presented substantial evidence of security concerns arising from Applicant’s delinquent debts. Applicant has cited to record evidence of her efforts to pay down her debts and the effect upon her financial situation of personal circumstances that were outside her control. A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-06622 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 2, 2012). The Judge made findings about the evidence which Applicant cites in her appeal brief, and he discussed this evidence in the Analysis portion of the Decision. However, the Judge plausibly explained why he concluded that Applicant’s favorable evidence was not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns in her case, considering the extent of her debts, the dilatory nature of her efforts to address her debts once she obtained employment, and her apparent lack of clear understanding of her financial situation as reflected in her presentation at the hearing. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the judge considered all of the record evidence, nor has she demonstrated that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. Applicant’s brief asserts facts from outside the record, such as her having hired a financial counselor. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett 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