CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-02155.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-02155.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02155.a1

Apr 7, 2015· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A retired Air National Guard member, employed by a defense contractor, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to ten delinquent debts. The applicant's financial difficulties were partly attributed to his wife's medical expenses and unemployment. However, the judge determined that the applicant had not made substantial efforts to resolve the majority of his outstanding debts.

While the applicant credibly disputed one of the ten debts, this did not outweigh the overall pattern of financial irresponsibility. The judge noted that minimal payments had been made on most debts, and the applicant had only recently begun to address these issues, leaving the majority still unresolved.

Ultimately, the presence of multiple unresolved delinquent debts, coupled with insufficient proactive measures to address them, led to the denial of the security clearance. Disqualifying condition F.3 was raised, and mitigating condition F.2 was applied, but it was insufficient to overcome the concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge acknowledged circumstances outside the applicant's control but concluded that he did not act responsibly to resolve his 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 issuedJul 10, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 2, 2015
Decision dateApr 7, 2015

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Consideration of Previous Favorable Decisions Does Not Preclude Adverse Action
The Importance of Demonstrating Responsible Financial Behavior for 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 that the evidence supported the adverse ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMartin H. Mogul — 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 affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the Judge's findings about the extent of Applicant's financial problems and the dilatory nature of Applicant's efforts to correct them supported the adverse decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo 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: The government is not precluded from making an adverse security clearance decision even where an Applicant had previous favorable decisions. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-02155.a1 DATE: 04/07/2015 DATE: April 7, 2015 In Re: ---------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-02155

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 July 10, 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 February 2, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul 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 in the Air National Guard for 25, years, retiring in 2014. He has been employed by a Defense contractor since 2009. His SOR lists ten delinquent debts, for medical expenses, collection accounts, etc. The Judge found that Applicant had provided a credible reason to have disputed one of the debts. For the remainder, however, Applicant has either made no payments or has reduced the debts by minimal amounts of $10 to $20. He claims that his financial problems arose in connection with his wife’s medical expenses and her unemployment. Applicant also acknowledges that he has been a poor record keeper, which had an impact on his finances. He states that he moved more than once, and some of his bills did not get forwarded. Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for his work ethic and for honesty. His recent performance review rates him as “Consistently Exceeds Expectations.” Decision at 4. He also received several awards while in the Guard. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge resolved one of the allegations in Applicant’s favor, the collection account that he had disputed. For the remainder, however, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not mitigated the concerns raised thereby. He cited to circumstances outside Applicant’s control that affected his debts but concluded that Applicant had not acted in a responsible manner to resolve them. He stated that Applicant had only recently begun to address his financial problems and that the “vast majority of his debt [is] still outstanding.” Decision at 6.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to record evidence that was favorable to him, such as his efforts to track down the proper owners of accounts that had been sold, his having held a clearance for many years, and his military service. His 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. 11-07094 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Sep. 5, 2014). Applicant notes that his financial problems had been addressed during a previous clearance adjudication. He contends that his difficulties are less severe now than they were during the earlier case. Accordingly, he argues that his current financial problems should not pose a barrier between him and his security clearance. We have previously noted that the Government is not precluded from making an adverse decision despite previous favorable ones. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-07094, supra, at 3. In the case before us, the Judge’s findings about the extent of Applicant’s financial problems, the circumstances underlying them, and the dilatory nature of Applicant’s efforts to correct them support his adverse decision. Applicant contends that the Judge did not apply the whole-person concept “strongly enough.” Appeal Brief at 1. The Decision contains a brief section entitled “Whole-Person Concept.” Decision at 6-7. The Decision supports a conclusion that the Judge considered Applicant’s conduct and circumstances as a totality, thereby complying with Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(a). See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03077 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 13, 2013).

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