CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-00566.a1 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date11/24/2014
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case 14-00566.a1) →See the hearing decision (Case 14-00566.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Jeffrey D. Billett, Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · For Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 14-00566.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-00566.a1

Nov 24, 2014· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unresolved financial issues and a lack of demonstrated responsible financial management. The appeal board affirmed this adverse decision, finding substantial evidence to support the judge's conclusions.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence of debt resolution for the majority of his outstanding debts. The judge characterized the applicant's financial management as haphazard, lacking a clear plan, and noted that efforts to address these debts were ad hoc and recent.

While Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20 was raised, the judge applied Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 21(a), AG ¶ 21(c), and AG ¶ 21(d). However, these were insufficient to overcome the concerns regarding the applicant's financial stability and management, leading to the ultimate denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe judge found that the applicant's financial issues were ongoing and not resolved.
AG ¶ 21(c)rejectedThe Applicant Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemThere was no evidence of financial counseling provided.
AG ¶ 21(d)rejectedThe Applicant Has a Reasonable Plan to Resolve the IssuesThe judge noted a lack of a clear, practical, and workable plan for addressing the debts.

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 issuedMar 14, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 27, 2014
Decision dateNov 24, 2014

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution
Characterization of Financial Management as Haphazard and Ad Hoc
Standards for Granting Security Clearances in Relation to 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 was from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error and that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — 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.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's material findings were based on substantial evidence and that the Applicant did not identify any harmful error likely to change the outcome of the case. The Judge's decision was sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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: A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record. Applicant failed to rebut that presumption or to show that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-00566.a1 DATE: 11/18/2014 DATE: November 24, 2014 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-11920

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On March 14, 2014, DoD 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 August 27, 2014, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., 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 decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact In the mid-2000s, Applicant attended a local college, taking out student loans to cover the $10,000 tuition. He completed six months of study, after which he found a job and made payments on the loans. However, in late 2007, he lost his job and, as a consequence, abandoned his plan to complete his degree. Two years later, a part-time employer offered Applicant a full-time position. Because of the attending pay raise, Applicant and his son bought a house. Unfortunately, his employer reduced him to part-time status, at which point he could not longer afford his mortgage payments. He abandoned the house, which went into foreclosure. Applicant neglected other debts, including his student loans. Although he attained full-time employment in 2011, his pay was at a reduced rate. He was able to pay some, thought not all, of his debts. About this time he divorced his wife, although there is no evidence as to the effect that this event exerted on Applicant’s finances. Applicant owed a debt for back taxes owed to his county, due to mistakes by his accountant. He also owed money to the IRS. His wages were garnished to pay his back taxes. Applicant borrowed some money, but it was not enough to cover all of his obligations. Applicant’s SOR alleged several delinquent debts, for utility bills, student loans, telecommunications services, etc. Although he demonstrated resolution of some of these debts, the Judge found that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate Applicant’s claims to have addressed or disputed the others. There is no evidence of financial counseling. Neither is there evidence of “a clear, practical, and workable plan for addressing the remainder” of Applicant’s debts. Decision at 4. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge resolved some of the SOR debts in Applicant’s favor. For the balance, however, which constituted a majority of the allegations, the Judge found that Applicant had not met his burden of production. He cited to a lack of evidence to corroborate Applicant’s claims of debt payment, concluding that, although Applicant’s financial condition was affected by circumstances outside his control, he had not shown responsible action in regard to his debts. He stated that Applicant’s efforts to address his problems have been “ad hoc” and recent, for example the satisfaction of his tax debts through garnishment. Id. at 6. He stated that Applicant’s course of action has been haphazard and relatively minor when compared with the magnitude of his financial problems. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge noted that, despite having held the record open after the hearing to give Applicant time to submit corroborating evidence, he did not do so for a majority of his debts. He again characterized Applicant’s efforts as “ad hoc.” Id. at 7.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends that his case contained inaccuracies, citing to evidence that he believes demonstrates debt resolution. We have considered Applicant’s arguments in light of the record as a whole. We conclude that the Judge’s material findings are based on substantial evidence, or constitute reasonable characterizations or inferences that could be drawn from the record. Applicant has not identified any harmful error likely to change the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014). Applicant’s citations to various pieces of evidence and to his hearing testimony are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-10255 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 28, 2014). An ability to argue for an alternative interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00173 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 8, 2014). The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The 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 Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board