CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-09433.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-09433.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-09433.a1

Jul 2, 2012· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to numerous delinquent debts. These financial difficulties reportedly stemmed from medical issues and job loss. The appeal board affirmed the denial, citing the applicant's failure to demonstrate that the majority of his debts had been resolved or were actively being addressed.

Specifically, the applicant had multiple outstanding delinquent debts, including medical bills and utility expenses. While Guideline F, paragraph 19, outlined disqualifying conditions, the applicant attempted to apply mitigating conditions under paragraph 20(b). However, the board found insufficient evidence that most of the debts listed in the Statement of Reasons had been paid or were in the process of resolution.

Furthermore, the applicant's claims that certain documents were not considered during the review process were unsupported and lacked corroboration. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Beyond ControlThe judge acknowledged circumstances outside the applicant's control but found insufficient evidence of debt resolution.

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 issuedJun 1, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 26, 2012
Decision dateJul 2, 2012

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Unresolved Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution as a Basis for Security Clearance Denial
Rejection of Claims Regarding Unconsidered Documents in the Appeal Process

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 based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge did not consider all evidence and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed that the Judge did not consider all of the record evidence.
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 examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, with a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. The adverse decision was sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
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 representation that he submitted documents which were not considered by the Judge is not supported. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-09433.a1 DATE: 07/02/2012 DATE: July 2, 2012 In Re: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-09433

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 June 1, 2011, 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 March 26, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola 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 considered all of the record evidence and 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: In 2004, Applicant had an appendectomy, causing him to miss five days work. As a consequence, he lost his job. In 2009 he experienced an on-the-job injury, followed by a fight to obtain medical disability status. These events caused Applicant to experience financial difficulties. The Judge found that Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, for medical bills, utility expenses, cell phones, etc. He found that four of the debts had been resolved but that several others were ongoing as of the close of the record. In the Analysis, the Judge noted the circumstances outside Applicant’s control which were at the root of his problems. However, he stated that Applicant had not demonstrated that the majority of the SOR debts had been paid or were in the process of being resolved.1 He denied Applicant a security clearance. Applicant claims that all of his evidence did not make it into the record. At the hearing, the Judge left the record open to enable Applicant to submit additional matters. Tr. at 19-20. On February 28, 2012, Applicant submitted eleven pages of documentary evidence, consisting principally of letters from creditors regarding the resolution of certain debts. This submission was admitted as Applicant Exhibit A. However, in his appeal brief, Applicant includes documents which he states did not make it into the record. We have, in the past, remanded cases to the appropriate Judges for consideration of documents that applicants had submitted but which were not incorporated into the records. However, in this case there is nothing in the record to corroborate Applicant’s claim that he had actually submitted additional documents. Indeed, at least three of them actually post-date the Judge’s decision. Furthermore, three documents submitted on appeal are in the hearing file.2 Accordingly, we find no reason to remand the case. Insofar as the documents Applicant has attached to his appeal brief are outside the record, we cannot consider them. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board.”) 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(b): “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.”

2 One of the documents that Applicant submitted with his appeal brief , a letter showing payment of a SOR debt, was included in Applicant Exhibit A. The Judge found in Applicant’s favor regarding this debt.