CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-01945.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-01945.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-01945.a1

Jun 12, 2015· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A retired military member with a history of holding security clearances was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial delinquencies totaling approximately $46,500. The appeal board affirmed this denial, citing the applicant's failure to demonstrate a responsible approach to resolving his debts, which raised concerns about his judgment and reliability.

Specifically, the applicant had three delinquent credit card debts amounting to approximately $46,500. He did not provide an explanation for how these debts were incurred. Furthermore, the applicant failed to present sufficient evidence of debt resolution or a meaningful track record of addressing his financial issues.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.3, which addresses a history of not meeting financial obligations. The board concluded that the applicant had not mitigated the financial concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy 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 issuedJun 26, 2014
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMar 27, 2015
Decision dateJun 12, 2015

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Delinquencies Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Financial Responsibility for National Security Interests
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Lack of Evidence for Debt Resolution

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 argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis or conclusions reached by the Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowThomas M. Crean — 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's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant did not demonstrate that the Judge's conclusions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

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
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: There is a rebuttable presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-01945.a1 DATE: 06/12/2015 DATE: June 12, 2015 In Re: ------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-01945

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 June 26, 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 March 27, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean 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 worked for Defense contractors since 2002. He served in the U.S. military, retiring in 2000. He has held a clearance since 1980. Applicant’s SOR alleges three delinquent credit card debts totaling about $46,500. He provided no explanation for how he acquired these debts. His response to the SOR includes letters from an attorney to the creditors and the credit reporting agencies disputing the amounts of the debts though not their validity. He has provided no information about any other action taken to resolve his financial problems. The record includes a letter from the attorney stating that no collection action can be taken so long as the debts are in dispute. The letter also states that Applicant is deliberately choosing to neglect his debts because of the disputed amounts. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s financial delinquencies raised concerns under Guideline F. He also concluded that none of the mitigating conditions could be favorably applied. He stated that Applicant has not demonstrated a meaningful track record of debt resolution, merely having disputed the amounts of the debts. The Judge also stated that Applicant failed to provide evidence substantiating the reason for the disputes. He stated that Applicant presented no evidence of having taken any action on his debts since 2011, the date of the letters from the attorney. The Judge concluded that “Applicant’s lack of documented action is significant and disqualifying.” Decision at 5. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to evidence of Applicant’s military service and his having held a clearance for many years without incident or concern. He reiterated, however, that Applicant had provided no credible evidence to show a reasonable and responsible approach to his financial problems. He concluded that the record left him with questions and doubts about Applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief contains assertions from outside the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. He cites to information contained in his clearance application and personal interview, arguing that he has established his case for mitigation by presenting all of the evidence that he has available. Applicant’s 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. 10-06824 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 9, 2012). In essence, Applicant argues for an alternative interpretation of the record. However, this argument is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Id. The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s presentation consists more of promises for future payment than of a demonstrated tack record of debt resolution is sustainable based on the record that was before him. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-04176 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Dec. 17, 2012). 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