CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-00631.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-00631.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-00631.a1

Feb 13, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor with over two decades of military service was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from significant financial issues, specifically a charged-off debt and a collection account, which were identified as disqualifying conditions under F1.

The applicant admitted to these debts but failed to provide sufficient evidence of efforts to mitigate them. The appeal board affirmed the denial, noting the absence of proof that the debts had been resolved.

The board underscored the importance of national security in its decision, emphasizing that the applicant's unresolved financial issues presented an unacceptable risk. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial 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 2, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateFeb 13, 2015

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Providing Evidence of Debt Resolution
Burden of Production on the Government Regarding Financial Issues

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 decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis and conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowRobert J. Tuider — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

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 did not err in concluding that Applicant's case raised security concerns and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the adverse decision.

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

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
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: Credit reports are generally sufficient to meet the Government’s burden of production. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-00631.a1 DATE: 02/13/2015 DATE: February 13, 2015 In Re: -------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-00631

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 April 2, 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 decision on the written record. On November 28, 2014, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider 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 has been employed by a Defense contractor since 2013. He attended college for a few months in 1994 and served in the U. S. military–on active duty, in the Reserves, and in the Guard–for over 20 years. Married, Applicant has three children and two stepchildren. Applicant’s SOR presents two allegations of delinquent debt: a charged-off home equity line of credit (HELOC) in the amount of $108,744 and a collection account in the amount of $216 for cable services. Applicant used the HELOC to pay off credit card debts. He claims not to recognize the other debt and is seeking to have it removed from his credit report. He states that his financial problems were related to his inability to return to active duty and consequent reversion to Guard status, resulting in a loss of income. He states that his other accounts are in good standing. There is no evidence that Applicant has sought credit counseling. He has provided no information showing that the two debts are paid, settled, subject to a payment plan, cancelled, or otherwise resolved. He has been fully employed since at least 2007. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s circumstances raised concerns under Guideline F. He also concluded that Applicant had failed to mitigate these concerns. He stated that Applicant failed to submit sufficient evidence regarding his circumstances, for example any efforts he had made to pay his debts.

DISCUSSION

Applicant argues that “‘conditions that could raise a security concern’ under Guideline F are inapplicable . . .” Appeal Brief at 3. The Government bears the burden of producing evidence regarding allegations that are controverted. Directive ¶ E3.1.14. In such cases, the Government must present substantial evidence, which 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.” ISCR Case No. 13-01281 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2014). In the case before us, Applicant admitted the HELOC debt. In addition, the Government presented evidence regarding the two SOR debts, including a summary of Applicant’s clearance interview and a credit report. Credit reports are generally sufficient to meet the Government’s burden of production. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10- 03668 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 5, 2012). Viewing this issue in light of the entire record, we conclude that the Judge did not err in concluding that Applicant’s case raised security concerns. Applicant cites to his favorable evidence, including his good work record, his military service, and his stated intention to resolve his debts. He contends that the Judge did not consider this evidence. However, this argument is not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00251 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 10, 2014). Applicant’s argument consists in essence of a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. His argument 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. 14-00228 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 7, 2014). Applicant’s brief cites to other Hearing Office decisions. While we give them due consideration as persuasive authority, Hearing Office decisions are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-14723 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 3, 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board