CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-06157.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-06157.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-06157.a1

Nov 20, 2012· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An administrative specialist for a Defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $25,000 in delinquent debt. The applicant attributed these financial issues to her husband's unemployment.

However, the judge found her mitigation claims undermined by her decision to take a cruise shortly after her husband lost his job. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence presented to demonstrate a consistent track record of debt repayment.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, concurring that the applicant failed to provide adequate evidence of debt resolution, emphasizing the paramount importance of national security considerations in such decisions.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial 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 issuedApr 27, 2012
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 28, 2012Decision on the written record.
Decision dateNov 20, 2012

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Delinquent Debt Under Guideline F
Impact of Personal Conduct on Financial Mitigation Claims
Importance of National Security Considerations in Clearance Decisions

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 and personal conduct. The applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider all evidence and mis-weighed the evidence. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to consider all of the record evidence.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge mis-weighed the record evidence.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's 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. The adverse decision was affirmed as sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
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 record supports a conclusion that Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 11-06157.a1 DATE: 11/20/2012 DATE: November 20, 2012 In Re: -----

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-06157

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 27, 2012, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On September 28, 2012, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry 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 all of the record evidence; whether the Judge mis-weighed the record evidence; and whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline E are not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is an administrative specialist for a Defense contractor. She has about $25,000 in delinquent debt. She has attributed her financial problem to her husband’s unemployment. Although he lost his job in 2009 and has not been able to find other employment, Applicant and her husband went on a tropical cruise in late 2009. In the Analysis, the Judge resolved one of the SOR allegations in her favor, but he found against her for the remaining six. In concluding that Applicant had not met her burden of persuasion as to mitigation, the Judge cited to a paucity of record evidence showing a track record of debt repayment. He also cited to Applicant’s cruise, which occurred five months after her husband’s unemployment, as undermining her case for mitigation. Applicant cites to record evidence, such as her efforts at debt repayment, her recently having been approved for social security payments, etc. A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record, and Applicant’s brief is not sufficient to rebut that presumption. Neither has she demonstrated that the Judge’s decision runs contrary to the weight of the record evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-03403 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 23, 2012). The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. 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 decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett 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