CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-07881.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-07881.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-07881.a1

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

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to numerous delinquent debts. The appeal board affirmed this denial, citing the applicant's failure to establish a consistent history of timely debt repayment.

The decision highlighted that the applicant's approach to addressing her debts was "ad hoc" and lacked demonstrable progress. While the applicant raised mitigating conditions F.2 and F.3, and disqualifying condition F.3 was noted, the judge ultimately found insufficient evidence to support the applicant's claims regarding debt payments.

The denial was based on the applicant's inability to mitigate the financial concerns, specifically her failure to provide sufficient evidence of a structured and effective plan for resolving her outstanding obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge noted that the record did not demonstrate that the applicant's unemployment was beyond her control.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Repay Overdue Creditors or Has Taken Significant Steps to Resolve DebtsThe applicant's efforts were deemed insufficient to demonstrate a track record of timely debt repayment.

Key Rule Quoted

“Promises to pay off delinquent debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of paying debts in a timely manner.”
— ISCR Case No. 09-05390 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 22, 2010)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 29, 2012
Answer filed—Applicant represented herself.
Hearing heldAug 2, 2012
Decision dateOct 5, 2012

Cite For

Affirmation of the Need for a Track Record of Timely Debt Repayment Under Guideline F
Rejection of Mitigating Conditions Related to Financial Difficulties
Presumption That Judges Consider All Evidence Presented in a Case

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 failed to properly consider evidence and that the decision was arbitrary. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — 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 or mis-weighed the record evidence.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge considered all relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, with a rational connection between the facts and the choice made. The adverse decision was sustainable on the record.

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: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-07881.a1 DATE: 10/05/2012 DATE: October 5, 2012 In Re: -------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-07881

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 March 29, 2012, 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 August 2, 2012, after the hearing, 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 issues on appeal: whether the Judge failed to consider, or mis- weighed, the record evidence and whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant has experienced unemployment in the recent past. She dropped out of a medical assistant program in 2005 and left a retail sales position soon thereafter, due to the birth of her first child. She worked in the insurance industry, but left her job due to undisclosed medical reasons. She was unemployed between 2008 and 2010. Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, about half of which relate to medical issues. Applicant claims to have paid some of her debts, but she provided little supporting evidence. Applicant attributes her financial problems to her unemployment and to her medical problems. Her current salary does not provide enough income to enable her to make progress in debt repayment. Her plan is to start paying off smaller debts. She has recently contacted a debt consolidation program, although she cannot afford the monthly payments which the program would entail. She hoped to have her plan implemented by the end of July 2012. In the Analysis, the Judge concluded that Applicant’s circumstances set forth Guideline F security concerns. Regarding mitigation, the Judge resolved some of the debts in Applicant’s favor. However, for the balance of them, he concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated mitigation. Although he noted that Applicant has tried to economize and has received some financial counseling, he stated that she had not established progress in debt repayment. He also stated that her approach to her debts appears to be “ad hoc.” Decision at 8. Citing to the Directive’s requirement that doubts about an applicant’s fitness for a security clearance must be resolved in favor of national security, the Judge denied Applicant a clearance. Applicant’s appeal brief cites to record evidence concerning such things as her efforts to pay her debts and the effect of her and her husband’s unemployment on their finances. To the extent that she is arguing that the Judge failed to consider this evidence, a Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-01027 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 9, 2012). The Judge made findings about Applicant’s circumstances, noting however that the record did not demonstrate that her unemployment was beyond her control. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence. Neither has she demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-02907 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 31, 2010). In support of her appeal, Applicant has submitted evidence from outside the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. See also ISCR Case No. 11-03623 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25 2012). 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. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09- 05390 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 22, 2010)(Promises to pay off delinquent debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of paying debts in a timely manner). “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