CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-03570.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-03570.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03570.a1

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

Summary

A 34-year-old male applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to significant outstanding debts and a state tax lien. The disqualifying conditions raised under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 19 included multiple delinquent accounts totaling over $16,000.

The denial was based on the applicant's limited repayment efforts and failure to negotiate repayment plans for these debts. The judge determined that these actions were insufficient to demonstrate responsible financial behavior.

Ultimately, the applicant's financial situation was deemed too unstable to meet the minimum eligibility requirements for a security clearance, leading to the denial of his application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedOct 16, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 10, 2015
Decision dateMay 12, 2015

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Repayment Efforts as a Basis for Adverse Decision
The Standard for Clearance Eligibility Being Consistent with 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 involved a denial of a security clearance based on 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 it supported by the record and that the Applicant's financial situation did not demonstrate sufficient progress to warrant a clearance.

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.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it sustainable based on the extent and ongoing nature of Applicant's debts, and concluded that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo 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: Given the extent and ongoing nature of Applicant’s debts, the Judge’s adverse decision is sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-03570.a1 DATE: 05/12/2015 DATE: May 12, 2015 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-03570

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 October 16, 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 10, 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 34 years old. Following his discharge from the military in 2010, Applicant could not find work. Some of the time between 2012 and 2014, he held part-time positions. With limited income, he fell behind with his bills. He accumulated a state tax lien in the amount of $308 and a judgment in the amount of $4,095. Applicant also accumulated 11 delinquent consumer debts in an amount exceeding $16,000. Applicant has not satisfied any of the debts. The only debt he has affirmatively addressed is the $4,095 judgment. He made $100 per month payments toward the judgment and has reduced the balance to $3,000. After promising to address his remaining creditors during an interview with a government investigator in May 2014, Applicant has not been able to make payments or complete any repayment plans with the other creditors. He states that he wants to repay his debts, but cannot do so until he returns to work. Applicant currently earns nothing from gainful employment and is surviving with his education loans. His wife is able to supplement his income with a part-time job that nets $1,031 bi-weekly. The Judge concluded: Most of Applicant’s debts are the result of extenuating circumstances. His recurrent incidences of unemployment and underemployment following his 2010 discharge from the military imposed considerable cost burdens on himself and his wife. However, too many of Applicant’s debts remain outstanding to support a conclusion that he has acted responsibly with regard to them. His limited repayment efforts and failure to attempt any negotiated repayment plans reflect too little progress to demonstrate satisfactory repayment progress. More time is needed for Applicant to restore his finances to stable levels consistent with minimum clearance eligibility requirements. Applicant questions why the Judge made findings concerning his first marriage, and asserts it has nothing to do with his security eligibility. The Board notes that the Judge discussed Applicant’s first marriage purely as background information in a section of his decision that was clearly labeled as such. A reading of the record evidence and the Judge’s decision indicates that the Judge’s findings concerning Applicant’s first marriage played no part in the Judge’s analysis regarding his financial situation, or his ultimate decision regarding Applicant’s clearance eligibility. Applicant cites to the overall circumstances of his life in recent years when questioning why the Judge did not fully take into consideration the setting for his accumulation of delinquent debt. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence in the record or shown that he 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). Given the extent and the ongoing nature of his debts, the Board concludes that the Judge’s overall decision in supported by the record.

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: 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