CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-01259.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-01259.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-01259.a1

Apr 10, 2012· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) for an applicant who is a divorced individual with one son. The denial stemmed from significant financial issues, including over $18,000 in delinquent debts and a prior bankruptcy.

The judge identified disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 but found insufficient evidence to apply mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20. Specifically, the applicant had over $18,000 in unmitigated delinquent debts, and there was no evidence of payments made under a debt consolidation agreement.

Although the applicant cited personal circumstances like employment difficulties and divorce, these did not sufficiently mitigate the concerns. The applicant's employment history, which included being fired from two jobs, further diminished the potential for mitigation, ultimately leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge acknowledged personal circumstances but found insufficient evidence of rehabilitation.

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 issuedApr 28, 2011
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJan 24, 2012
Decision dateApr 10, 2012

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Financial Rehabilitation Under Guideline F
Impact of Employment History on Financial Considerations
Criteria for Granting Security Clearance Consistent with National Security Interests

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's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and properly reasoned.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — 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 conclusion regarding the lack of evidence for mitigation was supported by the record and that the Judge articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, maintaining a rational connection between the facts and the conclusion reached.

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

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: The Judge’s conclusion that there is a paucity of evidence to demonstrate mitigation is supported by the record. Adverse decision affirmed CASENO: 11-01259.a1 DATE: 04/10/2012 DATE: April 10, 2012 In Re: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-01259

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 28, 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 decision on the written record. On January 24, 2012 after considering the record, Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson 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 made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is divorced, with one son. He pays monthly child support in the amount of $324. He was discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2005. After that, he acquired more delinquent debt. The total amount of the debts alleged in the SOR was over $18,000. In the years following his bankruptcy discharge, he experienced low paying jobs, short-term jobs, and periods of unemployment. He was fired from two jobs. Additionally, he divorced his wife in 2010. The Judge found that Applicant intends to pay his delinquent debts “as soon as time permits.” Decision at 3. Applicant’s personal financial statement, submitted as part of his answers to DOHA interrogatories, states that Applicant has $51 left over at the end of the month, without making payment toward his delinquent debts. In March 2011, Applicant entered into a contract with a debt consolidation company. Although the contract provides that, with monthly payments of $358, Applicant will have his debts paid off in 36 months, there is no evidence in the record of even one payment under this agreement. The Judge resolved two of the alleged debts in Applicant’s favor, finding that he had paid them off, based upon his response to the SOR. However, she found against Applicant for the remaining debts. She acknowledged circumstances affecting Applicant’s debts which were at least somewhat beyond his control, such as his employment difficulties and his divorce. However, she also noted that Applicant’s having been fired by two separate employers diminished the mitigating force of his unemployment. She noted that, as stated above, Applicant had supplied no evidence that he had actually made even a single payment under his agreement with the debt consolidation agency. The Judge stated that there was insufficient evidence of rehabilitation or of other mitigating circumstances to justify the award of a security clearance. In his appeal brief, Applicant points to evidence of his divorce and the effect this had on his debt problems. A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-06943 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 17, 2012). The Judge made findings about Applicant’s divorce and discussed it in her analysis. However, her overall conclusion that there is a paucity of evidence to demonstrate mitigation is supportable on this record. Applicant attached two receipts to his answer to the SOR, but he did not respond to the File of Relevant Material. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence. 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