CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-03964.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-03964.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03964.a1

Nov 18, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A military veteran with five children was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from the applicant's twelve delinquent accounts and a failure to demonstrate responsible action regarding these financial obligations.

Specifically, the applicant did not provide sufficient corroboration for claims of debt resolution efforts. The judge noted that the applicant appeared to have ignored his debts until recently, and there was no established track record of consistent debt payment.

While Disqualifying Condition F1 (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) was raised, Mitigating Condition F3 (the conditions that resulted in the financial problems were largely beyond the person's control and the individual has a good faith effort to resolve the problems) was applied but ultimately did not overcome the security concerns. The decision was affirmed on appeal, emphasizing the lack of evidence for debt resolution and the need for a demonstrated commitment to financial responsibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F3rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge acknowledged external circumstances but concluded the applicant did not take responsible action.

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 issuedFeb 13, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 8, 2016
Decision dateNov 18, 2016

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Providing Corroborative Evidence for Claims of Debt Resolution
Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Determinations

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 did not properly consider his circumstances, including the impact of Hurricane Katrina. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis or conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — 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 properly considered the totality of the evidence, including the applicant's circumstances, and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The applicant did not demonstrate that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence or failed to apply the whole-person concept appropriately.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
William S. Fields

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’s brief cites to evidence about the effect that Hurricane Katrina had on his finances and about his efforts at debt resolution. He argues that the Judge did not properly employ the whole-person concept. The Judge made findings about Applicant’s circumstances, including the hurricane. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. The Judge’s whole-person analysis complies with the requirements of Directive, in that the Judge considered the totality of the evidence in reaching her decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-03964.a1 DATE: 11/18/2016 DATE: November 18, 2016 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-03964

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 February 13, 2015, 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 July 8, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson 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 is separated from his spouse. He has five children and a step-child. He served in the military, achieving the rank of E-5. Applicant is seeking a clearance in connection with his employment by a Defense contractor. Applicant’s SOR lists twelve delinquent debts, for such things as an account at a university, a broken lease, a state tax lien, a repossessed vehicle, etc. He stated that he was working to resolve his debts, and he disputes some of them. He did not provide evidence of the basis for any disputes, however. Applicant attributed his financial problems to Hurricane Katrina, his divorce, expenses associated with relocating, and the death of his father. He noted that he had worked out of state, living in a hotel when working and commuting on weekends, which caused his most recent delinquent debts. The Judge’s Analysis Though acknowledging circumstances outside Applicant’s control that affected his financial problems, the Judge concluded that he had not demonstrated responsible action. She stated that he had not provided corroboration for his claims of debt resolution, as a consequence of which he had not demonstrated a track record of debt payment. She stated that he appeared to have ignored his debts until recently.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief contains matters from outside the record, including at least two documents that post-date the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant’s brief cites to evidence about the effect that Hurricane Katrina had on his finances and about his efforts at debt resolution. He argues that the Judge did not properly employ the whole-person concept. The Judge made findings about Applicant’s circumstances, including the hurricane. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14- 05795 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016). Moreover, the Judge’s whole-person analysis complies with the requirements of Directive ¶ 6.3, in that the Judge considered the totality of the evidence in reaching her decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00424 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2016). 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board