CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-00429.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-00429.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-00429.a1

Sep 12, 2014· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, a former military member, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. These problems originated from past misconduct rather than circumstances beyond her control, raising concerns about her financial reliability.

While the applicant made some debt payments, the judge determined there was insufficient evidence of overall debt resolution. The applicant's failure to provide necessary documentation to demonstrate comprehensive debt resolution was a key factor in the denial, and her self-representation was not considered an excuse for this omission.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's financial management was not reliable, leading to the denial of her security clearance request.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not demonstrate sufficient evidence of financial counseling or resolution of 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 18, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateSep 12, 2014

Cite For

Self-representation Does Not Excuse Failure to Provide Evidence
Financial Issues Stemming From Misconduct Are Not Mitigated
Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution Leads to Denial Under Guideline F

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 under Guideline F. The applicant, representing herself, argued that she was denied due process and that the Judge's decision was arbitrary. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's decision-making process.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowFrancisco Mendez — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed she was denied due process due to self-representation.
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 no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision, affirming that the applicant was not denied due process and that the Judge's analysis was not arbitrary or capricious.

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 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: Having chosen to represent herself, Applicant cannot fairly complain about the quality of her self-representation. There is no reason to conclude that Applicant was denied due process. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-00429.a1 DATE: 09/12/2014 DATE: September 12, 2014 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-00429

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James E. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On March 18, 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 July 23, 2014, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez 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 she was denied due process and 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 in the military, during which time she held a security clearance. She received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for DUI and another for battery, resulting in a reduction in rank. She was barred from reenlisting due to her misconduct. She has been employed as a Federal contractor since her discharge and has worked for her current employer since 2012. Applicant has significant financial problems. They began when her commander reduced her in rank under the NJP. She became unable to pay her debts and defaulted on several of them. She provided evidence that she paid two of her debts at the time she completed her SCA and paid four other debts shortly before submitting her Answer to the SOR. She provided no information that she had disputed, settled, paid, or otherwise resolved any of her remaining SOR debts. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s problems did not result from circumstances beyond her control, in light of evidence that they began when she was punished for misconduct. He also noted that her documentation shows that she took action regarding her debts at “critical junctures of her current security clearance review.” Decision at 5. She provided no documentation that she had taken action on her debts in the nine months between the submission of her SCA and her response to the SOR. He concluded that she had paid some minor debts solely for the purpose of gaining a clearance. He stated that he is not convinced that she will continue to manage her finances in a responsible manner once the clearance review process is over. He stated that she had submitted no evidence of financial counseling or that she had disputed any of her debts. Although noting Applicant’s military service, her prior experience in holding a clearance, and her candor in disclosing her debt problems, he concluded that she had not mitigated the concerns in her case.

DISCUSSION

Applicant points out that she was not represented by counsel or by some other person with knowledge of the clearance process. She states that she was not aware that she had to submit additional documentation. The record shows, however, that Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) advised her that she could submit a documentary response presenting matters in rebuttal, extenuation, and mitigation. By letter accompanying the FORM, DOHA also advised Applicant of her right to submit “any material” she wished in response. Applicant did submit a letter, in which she stated that much of her effort at debt resolution took place over the phone. Therefore, she had nothing in writing to provide. The record shows that Applicant was given sufficient notice of her rights. Having chosen to represent herself, Applicant cannot fairly complain about the quality of her self-representation. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-08118 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Aug. 12 , 2013). There is no reason to believe that Applicant was denied due process. Applicant has challenged the Judge’s mitigation analysis. In doing so, she presents matters outside the record, which we cannot consider. See, e.g, ISCR Case No. 08-05379 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 15, 2010). She points to evidence in the record of her payment of certain debts. However, she has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has she shown that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-13984 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2014). The Judge’s findings about the timing of Applicant’s debt payments support his adverse decision. Id. 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