CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-04981.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-04981.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-04981.a1

Feb 16, 2012· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to six delinquent debts totaling $36,000. The judge determined that these outstanding financial obligations raised security concerns.

Although the applicant claimed to have settled some of these debts, she did not provide sufficient documentation to substantiate her claims or demonstrate good-faith efforts toward resolution. Consequently, the judge concluded that security concerns persisted.

The appeal of this decision was denied, as the judge's initial finding was supported by the evidence presented. The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20(a), reflecting the applicant's failure to mitigate the financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedJul 26, 2011
Answer filed—Applicant represented herself (pro se) in the proceedings.
Hearing held—
Decision dateFeb 16, 2012

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Documentation to Support Claims of Debt Resolution
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Lack of Evidence of Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts

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 was from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge failed to properly weigh evidence regarding her debts. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis or conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRita C. O’Brien — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to consider or mis-weighed significant record evidence.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge properly considered the evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, with a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. The Judge's 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

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
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 cited evidence, a payment agreement, does not demonstrate that Applicant actually made the payments. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 11-04981.a1 DATE: 02/16/2012 DATE: February 16, 2012 In Re: --------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-04981

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 July 26, 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 November 30, 2011, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Rita C. O’Brien 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, significant record evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse 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 six delinquent debts, which total $36,000. These debts include charged off accounts with banks, a debt to the IRS, and a debt to a state for past due taxes. Applicant stated in her security clearance interview that she intended to pay her debts. Later, in an interrogatory response, she stated that she had settled one of them, a debt owed to a bank and listed as ¶ 1(a) in the SOR. However, she did not provide documentary corroboration of actual payment on the debt. She stated in an interrogatory response that she was working with certain creditors and that she had made payments both to the IRS and to her state. However, she did not attach documentation. Applicant has a net monthly income of $2,287. After expenses and debt repayments, she has a negative remainder. Applicant has attributed her financial problems to a divorce and to a period of unemployment. In the Analysis, the Judge noted evidence that Applicant’s debts were affected by circumstances outside her control. However, she also concluded that Applicant had not provided evidence of debt resolution or of good-faith efforts to resolve her debts. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge noted that Applicant had been aware that delinquent debts are a security concern, since she completed her security clearance application in December 2010 but had produced little documentation to show that she has taken significant steps to resolve these debts. The Judge wrote that without documentary evidence to support Applicant’s statements, she could not conclude that Applicant’s claims of efforts to resolve her debts had been established. In her appeal brief, Applicant cites to record evidence of her settlement of the debt listed at ¶ 1(a) of the SOR. We construe her argument to be that the Judge either did not consider this evidence or that she did not properly weigh it. We have examined the document, attached to her response to DOHA interrogatories (Item 7). It consists of a statement by the creditor confirming a payment agreement with Applicant. However, it does not demonstrate that Applicant actually made the payments set forth. This document supports the Judge’s finding concerning ¶ 1(a) and is consistent with the Judge’s analysis of Applicant’s claims about debt resolution. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence, nor has she demonstrated that the Judge failed properly to weigh the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-07395 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 14, 2010). Applicant’s brief contains information from outside the record concerning the extent of debt repayment since her interrogatory responses. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-10087 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 8, 2011). 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board