CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-11083.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-11083.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-11083.a1

Dec 18, 2012· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved delinquent debts, including a credit card debt of $6,082. The appeal board upheld the denial, citing the applicant's failure to provide evidence of debt payment and her lack of acceptance of responsibility.

Disqualifying condition F.1 was raised, while mitigating condition F.2 was applied. However, the applicant did not provide corroborating evidence of debt payment despite being given an opportunity to do so. The judge found her attitude toward the unresolved debt to be baffling and indicative of a lack of responsibility.

Ultimately, the applicant's inconsistent statements regarding the debt raised doubts about her reliability and judgment, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

F.2rejectedMitigating ConditionsThe applicant did not accept responsibility for the debt and failed to provide evidence of payment.

Key Rule Quoted

“An unsatisfied debt is a continuing course of conduct for the purpose of DOHA adjudications.”
— ISCR Case No. 06-23369 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 1, 2008)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 11, 2012
Answer filed—Applicant represented herself.
Hearing heldSep 19, 2012
Decision dateDec 18, 2012Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Unresolved Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Importance of Providing Corroborating Evidence for Claims of Debt Payment
Consideration of a Whole-person Analysis in Security Clearance Determinations.

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 argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and that the whole-person analysis was inadequate. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis or conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — 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 contended that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Whole-person analysis — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge did not perform an adequate whole-person analysis of her circumstances.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision based on the findings regarding the Applicant's unresolved debt and the lack of corroborating evidence for her claims. The Judge's whole-person analysis was found to comply with the requirements of the Directive.

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

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: An unsatisfied debt is a continuing course of conduct for purposes of DOHA adjudications. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-11083.a1 DATE: 12/18/2012 DATE: December 18, 2012 In Re: --------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-11083

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 April 11, 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 September 19, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran 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 properly applied the whole-person factors and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s decision. The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issues raised on appeal: Applicant has held a security clearance since 2008. She attended undergraduate and graduate school from 1998 to 2004. She took out student loans to pay for a portion of the costs. She became financially strained, and some of her debts became delinquent. The SOR cited to six delinquent debts, including one for $6,082, a charged-off credit card, alleged under ¶ 1(e). In her response to the SOR, Applicant stated that this debt had been paid in full, and she testified at the hearing to similar effect. In her security clearance interview, however, she stated that she had tried to negotiate a settlement of this debt but that she had not been successful. She made a similar claim in her answer to a DOHA interrogatory question. At the hearing, she asserted that the interview summary did not accurately describe her answers to the interviewer’s questions. She testified that she had told the interviewer that she had paid the debt and was trying to have it removed from her credit report. The Judge gave her 30 days after the hearing to submit corroborating evidence of her claim to have paid this debt. She provided no such evidence. The Judge found that she still owed the debt. In the Analysis, the Judge entered favorable findings on five of the six alleged debts. However, regarding ¶ 1(e), the Judge concluded that Applicant had not accepted responsibility for it. He stated that he found her attitude toward this debt to be “baffling.” Decision at 8. Finding that the unresolved debt was ongoing, the Judge concluded that it cast doubt upon Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge stated that he had considered Applicant’s case in light of the factors listed in Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(a). He also stated that he had considered her evidence of good character. However, given what he described as Applicant’s “steadfast refusal to accept responsibility for a debt in the face of overwhelming evidence” (Decision at 9), he concluded that she had not mitigated the security concern raised by ¶ 1(e). Applicant contends that the Judge did not perform an adequate whole-person analysis of her circumstances. For example, she argues that the debt in question was incurred several years ago and, therefore, is not recent. However, an unsatisfied debt is a continuing course of conduct for the purpose of DOHA adjudications. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-23369 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 1, 2008). Applicant cites to record evidence, such as her character references, evidence that she is current on her bills, her excellent work record, her having held a clearance for many years, etc. A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-07219 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 27, 2012). In this case, the Judge acknowledged Applicant’s character evidence. Applicant’s brief provides no reason to believe that he did not consider the other evidence Applicant has cited, or that he did not consider all of the evidence in the record. Applicant has failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence. After considering the record as a whole, we conclude that the Judge’s whole-person analysis complies with the requirements of the Directive, in that he considered the totality of her conduct in reaching his decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-09511 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 3, 2010). Applicant states that, if she loses her clearance, she is at risk of losing her job. However, the effect that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not relevant or material to a security clearance determination. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-01021 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 18, 2011). The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record, given the Judge’s findings about Applicant’s inconsistent statements regarding the debt in question and the lack of corroboration for her claims to have paid the debt. “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 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