CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-02087 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-02087denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-02087

Mar 20, 2012· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

A federal contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial concerns. The applicant had a history of 21 delinquent debts, which raised substantial security risks.

The judge determined that the applicant lacked a coherent financial plan and had ignored many of her financial obligations, failing to demonstrate responsible action regarding these debts. While some mitigating conditions were applied, including favorable findings regarding her character and efforts to address certain debts, these were insufficient to overcome the overall pattern of inadequate financial management.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's financial history presented an unacceptable security risk, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Beyond ControlThe judge acknowledged that some financial problems were beyond the applicant's control, such as unemployment and a former spouse's child support arrears.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith EffortsThe judge recognized the applicant's efforts to pay off some debts but concluded they were insufficient to mitigate the overall concerns.

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 issuedAug 9, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 22, 2011
Decision dateMar 20, 2012

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Significant Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Issues Despite Favorable Character Evidence
The Standard for Granting Clearance Is Consistency 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 raised several issues on appeal, including claims of inconsistency in the Judge's decision and failure to consider evidence. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful errors in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — 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 security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider all of the record evidence.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed that the Judge's decision contained a significant inconsistency that undermined its ultimate conclusion.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant argued that Department Counsel failed to meet the Government’s burden of production.

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 did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

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

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: The Directive does not require a Judge to articulate an explicit credibility determination, even in cases in which he or she denies a clearance. A Judge can find an applicant to be honest and believable but nevertheless conclude that the applicant has not mitigated the security concerns in his or her case. CASE NO: 11-02087 DATE: 03/20/2012 DATE: March 20, 2012 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-02087

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Richard L. Morris, Esq. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On August 9, 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 December 22, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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’s decision contained a significant inconsistency that undermined its ultimate conclusion; whether the Judge failed to consider all of the record evidence; whether Department Counsel failed to meet the Government’s burden of production; and 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 an employee of a Federal contractor. She was unemployed for about a month in 2005, following a job layoff. She is seeking to upgrade an existing security clearance. She was previously married, having divorced her first husband in 2001. Her former husband is about $16,000 in arrears in his child support payments. She remarried in 2008. Applicant began falling behind on payments following her divorce. She did not make co-payments for medical treatment and her student loans became delinquent. The SOR lists 21 delinquent debts, not only for medical expenses and student loans, but also for telephone services, a satellite television account, mortgage payments, etc. She and her husband have a monthly income of about $5,185, with a net remainder of between $453 and $553. In the Analysis, the Judge concluded that Applicant’s history of delinquent debt established security concerns under Guideline F. He noted Applicant’s divorce, brief period of unemployment, her former husband’s child support arrearage, and her payments on some of her debts. He concluded that Applicant’s circumstances raised two Guideline F mitigating conditions, 20(b)1 and 20(d).2 Applying these mitigating conditions, the Judge entered favorable findings on 11 of the debts alleged in the SOR. However, he went on to conclude that Applicant had not mitigated the remaining 10 debts. In the whole-person analysis, he stated that Applicant has ignored many of her debts, has no savings for unexpected expenses, and “lacks a coherent plan for gaining control of her finances.” Decision at 8. Applicant contends that the Judge’s adverse decision is inconsistent with his Findings of Fact and Analysis. Specifically, she notes that he did not make an explicit finding that her presentation was not credible. She argues that the absence of a negative credibility determination is at variance with the Judge’s adverse clearance decision. We have considered Applicant’s argument in light of the record as a whole. The Directive requires us to defer to a Judge’s credibility determination. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. However, the Directive does not require a Judge to articulate an explicit credibility determination, even in cases in which the Judge denies the applicant a clearance. As we noted in an earlier case, even if a Judge considers an applicant’s testimony to be credible, the Judge still must consider what reasonable inferences and conclusions can be drawn from that testimony. ISCR Case No. 99-0519 at 12 (App. Bd. Feb. 23, 2001). It is not inconsistent for a Judge to find an applicant to be honest and believable but, nevertheless, reasonably to conclude that the applicant’s presentation is not sufficient to meet his or her burden of persuasion as to mitigation. In the case at issue here, the Judge did not address Applicant’s credibility per se; however, his detailed, unchallenged findings, considered alongside Applicant’s admissions to the SOR, support his conclusion that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to several of her debts or a good faith effort to resolve them. Applicant cites to her testimony that she has held a clearance for several years without incident or concern. This was evidence the Judge was bound to consider, along with all the other evidence in the record. However, prior favorable adjudications or a good security record are not dispositive of an applicant’s security concerns. Even years of safeguarding national security information may not be sufficient to mitigate a history of ongoing, significant delinquent debt. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-00435 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 22, 2009) (The applicant’s nine years experience in safeguarding classified information were not sufficient to undermine the Judge’s adverse decision under Guideline F). In the case under consideration here, the Judge acknowledged Applicant’s good security record but reasonably explained his conclusion that she had not mitigated the concern arising from ten of her alleged delinquent debts. As we stated in ISCR Case No. 08-00435 supra, the Government need not wait until an individual mishandles or fails to safeguard classified information before it can make an unfavorable security clearance decision. Applicant contends that the Judge ignored favorable record evidence concerning her character, honesty, and reliability. A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-10068 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 20, 2011). However, the Judge’s Analysis addressed the favorable aspects of the record that was before him, including evidence of Applicant’s maturity, educational attainments, security record, and efforts to pay off some of her debts. Applicant’s argument on appeal is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence. Neither is it sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Applicant contends that Department Counsel failed to present evidence that Applicant has a “potential for exploitation, pressure, coercion, or duress.” We construe this argument to mean that Department Counsel failed to meet its burden of production. In a DOHA proceeding, the Government must present substantial evidence of facts alleged in the SOR that have been controverted. Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” Directive ¶ E3. 1.14; Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. See also ISCR Case No. 08-06859 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 29, 2010). In this case, Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations except two. The two she did not admit were among those which the Judge resolved in her favor. Accordingly, the remaining allegations were not controverted, relieving the Government of any burden of production. Nevertheless, the Government presented substantial evidence of Applicant’s financial delinquencies, in the form of Applicant’s answers to two sets of DOHA interrogatories, three credit reports, and the security clearance application. Taken together, these documents, along with Applicant’s admissions, set forth security concerns under Guideline F. The Government was under no further burden of production. 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: 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

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 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(d): “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts[.]”