CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-03286.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-03286.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03286.a1

Nov 20, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A former military member and government contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unresolved delinquent debts. The applicant had outstanding obligations related to taxes, child support arrears, and a mortgage.

The denial was based on the presence of several unresolved delinquent debts and the applicant's failure to provide evidence of efforts to resolve these debts or demonstrate financial responsibility. The judge specifically noted that the applicant did not substantiate claims made regarding his financial situation or the resolution of his debts.

Ultimately, the applicant did not meet the necessary financial standards for clearance, 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 issuedSep 12, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 31, 2015
Decision dateNov 20, 2015

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Substantiating Claims Regarding Financial Responsibility
Standard for Clearance Decisions Favoring National Security Interests

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 was filed by the applicant after the DoD denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the Judge reasonably interpreted the evidence and that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims regarding his financial situation.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — 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
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 conclusion regarding the applicant's financial situation was a reasonable interpretation of the record, and the decision was sustainable based on the evidence presented.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. 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: Applicant submitted substantial new evidence which the Board cannot consider. CASENO: 14-03286.a1 DATE: 11/20/2015 DATE: November 20, 2015 In Re: ---------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-03286

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 September 12, 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 August 31, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera 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 considered all of the evidence in the record, with the result that his adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant works for a Government contractor. He served on active duty with the U.S. military from 1990 until 1996 and in the Reserves from 1998 until 2002. He has attended college but has not received a degree. Twice divorced, Applicant has three children, ages 19, 20, and 21. Applicant first received a DoD security clearance in 1998, although the record is not clear as to whether he has held one since. Applicant’s SOR lists several delinquent debts, three of which the Judge resolved against Applicant. These were for a tax debt to his state, child support obligations, and the balance due after a foreclosure sale of his house. Applicant stated that he had filed his Federal tax return for the tax year in question but had forgotten to file one for his state. In his SOR answer, Applicant stated that he was in the process of filing an amended state income tax return and that he intended to pay his tax debt. He presented no evidence to support this claim; a credit report shows that the state released a tax lien. Applicant’s pay statement shows that the state is withholding $157 a month for tax purposes. Applicant attributed his child support arrearage to his having failed to increase the payments mandated in his divorce decree as his income grew. In 2012, a court ordered withholding of $650 a month from Applicant’s pay. Applicant disclosed that, due to divorce-related expenses and child support obligations, he could not pay his monthly mortgage. His home went into foreclosure, and Applicant claimed that he understood that he owed nothing further. Applicant stated that he had contacted the creditor to resolve the balance alleged to be owed but heard nothing back. Applicant’s credit report shows that this debt is in dispute, although Applicant presented nothing to substantiate the basis for the dispute. Applicant’s SOR alleged two “service provider” accounts that Applicant paid. Decision at 3. Applicant has a net monthly income of a little over $3,300. He provided no information about his monthly expenses, whether he had received financial counseling, or whether he has a budget that he follows. Applicant’s 2015 credit report shows several accounts that had been paid after having become delinquent or having been charged off. It also shows numerous accounts that are in good standing. The credit report also shows an unpaid credit card debt and an unpaid medical debt of about $10. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge entered favorable findings regarding the two “service provider” debts referenced above. He entered adverse findings for the remainder–the tax debt, the child support arrearage, and the mortgage debt. He found that these debts were ongoing and that Applicant had provided no evidence to corroborate his claims about debt resolution or that he had filed his state tax return. The Judge also stated that, except for a pay statement, Applicant had provided no evidence of his current financial situation. Neither had Applicant provided evidence of financial counseling or that he follows a budget.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s submission on appeal includes a substantial amount of information that is not contained in the record, including some documents that post-date the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant cites to record evidence that addresses the circumstances of his debts and his efforts to resolve them. The Judge made findings about this evidence. However, his conclusion that Applicant provided insufficient evidence about his financial situation and his efforts to resolve his debts constitutes a reasonable interpretation of the record. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-08412 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 11, 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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