CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-02817.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-02817.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-02817.a1

Apr 17, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A long-time security clearance holder with a military background was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved delinquent debts totaling approximately $19,000. The applicant's case raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 20.

While the applicant presented mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 21(a), AG ¶ 21(b), and AG ¶ 21(c), and had a good work record, these were not sufficient to overcome the security concerns. The judge determined that the applicant had not acted responsibly regarding his debts and had procrastinated in addressing them.

The appeal board upheld the denial, emphasizing the importance of responsible financial management in relation to national security.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's financial issues were ongoing and unresolved.
AG ¶ 21(b)rejectedThe Individual Has Received CounselingThe applicant did not provide evidence of effective financial counseling.
AG ¶ 21(c)rejectedThe Individual Has a Good ReputationThe applicant's good reputation was insufficient to mitigate the financial 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 issuedFeb 28, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 29, 2015
Decision dateApr 17, 2015

Cite For

Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Importance of Addressing Financial Issues for Security Clearance
Impact of Unresolved Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 after being 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 not contrary to law.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — 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 argued 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 decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious. The Judge properly considered the evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael 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: Applicant’s citation to favorable evidence is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 12-02817.a1 DATE: 04/17/2015 DATE: April 17, 2015 In Re: ---------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-02817

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Ryan C. Nerney, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On February 28, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of 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 January 29, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch 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 Applicant served on active duty with the U.S. military from 1973 to 1977 and in the National Guard from 1981 to 2004. He has held a security clearance for over 30 years. Divorced and remarried, Applicant has an adult son and five stepchildren. Since 2010, he has been living abroad. Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2001 for about $90,000 in nonpriority unsecured debt.1 His SOR alleges ten delinquent debts, in the amount of about $19,000. He claimed that five of the accounts had been resolved, either by payment or by removal from his credit report. Applicant’s wife is disabled and cannot work. When she had to stop working, the family income dropped by $45,000. Moreover, Applicant’s wife used credit cards and did not pay the balances. Applicant provided financial assistance to his adult offspring, spending about $32,000 on them. Applicant contacted a law firm to negotiate settlements for him with his creditors. He claims he has received no communication from the firm in about six months and did not provide a list of accounts that may have been settled. Applicant has two savings accounts, totaling about $28,000. In addition, his net monthly income is $17,000. Applicant enjoys a good reputation for his work ethic and leadership. He is viewed as trustworthy. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s delinquent debts gave rise to security concerns. In evaluating Applicant’s case for mitigation, she noted his wife’s disability and consequent inability to work. However, she stated that Applicant’s debts are still unresolved. She found that Applicant had not acted responsibly in regard to his debts. The Judge stated that Applicant had the apparent ability to pay his delinquent debts but had procrastinated until his security clearance fell into jeopardy. She concluded that Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion as to mitigation.

DISCUSSION

Applicant argues that “conditions that could raise a security concern” are not applicable. However, evidence of Applicant’s ongoing debts and his dilatory effort at addressing them is sufficient to raise Guideline F concerns. The Directive presumes a nexus between admitted or proven conduct under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s worthiness for a clearance. See, e.g., ISCR Case No.12-01295 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 20, 2015). Applicant’s citation to favorable evidence, such as his good work record and his having held a clearance for many years, is not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither is it enough 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. 14-00998 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 19, 2015). We give due consideration to the Hearing Office cases that Applicant has cited. However, Hearing Office decisions are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-01297 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2015). 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: 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 “[Department Counsel]: . . . back in 2000 you filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy? [Applicant]: Yes. [Department Counsel]: In which approximately $90,000 . . . worth of debt was wiped out. [Applicant]: Yes.” Tr. at 52-53.