CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-03373.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-03373.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03373.a1

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

Summary

A 38-year-old applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to significant and unaddressed financial issues. The denial was affirmed by the Board, which highlighted the applicant's failure to adequately resolve his financial responsibilities.

Key disqualifying conditions included the applicant's failure to file federal tax returns for multiple years, resulting in substantial unpaid taxes. Additionally, several outstanding judgments and multiple other debts remained unaddressed, indicating a pattern of financial irresponsibility.

While mitigating conditions were considered, the applicant's corrective actions were ultimately deemed insufficient to alleviate security concerns. The ongoing nature of the debts and the applicant's failure to adequately address them were central to the decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's financial issues were ongoing and not resolved.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Beyond the Person's ControlWhile the applicant cited extenuating circumstances, the judge found insufficient evidence of responsible debt management.
AG ¶ 20(c)notedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedThe Person Has Established a Good Track Record of Debt RepaymentThe applicant had not made significant progress in addressing his debts.
AG ¶ 20(e)notedThe Person Has a Reasonable Plan for Debt Repayment

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 heldMar 2, 2015
Decision dateMay 7, 2015

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Corrective Actions to Mitigate Financial Concerns
Ongoing Nature of Debts as a Disqualifying Factor in Security Clearance Cases

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 whose security clearance 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, concluding that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that any alleged errors were harmless.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — 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 decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that any errors made by the Judge were minor and did not affect the outcome of the case, affirming the unfavorable security clearance decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
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: The Board concludes that any error by the Judge were minor and did not affect the outcome of the case. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-03373.a1 DATE: 05/07/2015 DATE: May 7, 2015 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-03373

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 hearing. On March 2, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed, pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable security clearance decision. The Judge found: Applicant is 38 years old. He failed to file his federal tax returns for tax years 2006 through 2008 and owes about $14,000 in federal taxes for those years. In 2010 he began a payment plan with the IRS, paid regularly, and retired the debt in October 2014. Applicant failed to timely file his 2006 State A income tax return and became indebted to the state in the amount of $6,266 for tax years 2006 and 2007. A State A tax judgment for $4,588 remains outstanding. Applicant made one payment of $623 toward this judgment in 2015. State B filed a tax lien against Applicant in 2011 in the amount of $1,084. $274 remains outstanding and Applicant has not made any payment arrangements with State B to discharge this debt. Applicant is indebted to a law firm for a judgment of $13,696, entered in 2012. He has not made any progress in addressing this judgment. Applicant accumulated four consumer debts for an amount exceeding $1,600. Three of the debts have been paid. He also accrued a delinquent home equity loan for approximately $55,000. The debt was the result of a foreclosure on his home in 2006. The proceeds of the sale covered a first mortgage but were insufficient to satisfy $55,000 of the home equity loan. A creditor’s suit was filed in 2013 but its status is unknown. The debt is still outstanding. Applicant and his wife were divorced in 2007. The divorce had a negative impact on Applicant’s finances. The Judge concluded: Applicant’s debts are attributed to lapses in Judgment in the management of his financial affairs. These lapses were accompanied by extenuating circumstances in the form of a difficult separation and divorce that entailed considerable cost burdens that affected his finances. However, he has not addressed one consumer debt or his State B tax debt. He also has not addressed the large home equity debt. Too many of his debts remain outstanding to support a conclusion that Applicant has acted responsibly regarding debt repayment. Applicant’s corrective actions to date are insufficient to mitigate the Government’s security concerns. Applicant’s appeal brief contains several representations regarding his finances that go beyond the evidence of record. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant takes issue with two of the Judge’s findings concerning the dollar amounts of indebtedness and payment amounts. After a review of the record and the Judge’s decision, the Board concludes that any errors on the part of the Judge involving amounts are minor in nature, did not influence the central aspects of the Judge’s analysis, and did not affect the outcome of the case. Applicant argues that he has held a clearance for many years and his debt situation did not affect his ability to properly handle classified information. He states that during his difficulties he never considered selling information. The Judge made extensive findings about the context in which Applicant experienced his financial difficulties. However, given the extent and the ongoing nature of his debts, the Board concludes that the Judge’s overall decision is supported by the record. Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-06438 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2009). The Board does not review a case de novo. The mitigating evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007). After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). “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). Therefore, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, 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