CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-04878.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-04878.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-04878.a1

Aug 30, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to numerous delinquent debts. The appeal board affirmed this denial, citing the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence of financial stability or that his debts were addressed.

The applicant's financial issues included outstanding medical expenses and a charged-off second mortgage. These unaddressed delinquent debts were identified as disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 20.

Ultimately, the denial was based on the applicant's inability to demonstrate that his financial concerns had been resolved or that he had achieved financial stability, underscoring the importance of national security in clearance determinations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial 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 issuedMar 26, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 1, 2016
Decision dateAug 30, 2016

Cite For

Importance of Addressing Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Burden of Persuasion on the Applicant Regarding Financial Stability
Consideration of Charged-off Debts in Security Clearance Evaluations

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 Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that the Judge did not properly weigh evidence regarding a mortgage debt. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge failed to properly weigh evidence regarding a mortgage debt.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge did not consider evidence concerning the mortgage debt.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge considered all evidence and did not mis-weigh it. The Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the burden of persuasion regarding financial considerations.

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 Y. 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 has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither has he shown that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. Beyond those two issues, Applicant’s brief fails for lack of specificity. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-04878.a1 DATE: 08/30/2016 DATE: August 30, 2016 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-04878

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 March 26, 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 June 1, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge considered the record evidence concerning a mortgage debt and whether the Judge failed properly to weigh this evidence. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant’s SOR lists 18 delinquent debts, for such things as medical expenses, television services, and a charged-off second mortgage. Applicant’s medical bills resulted from his knee surgery, as well as from his daughter’s dental care. He contended that the mortgage had been sold to another creditor. However, the record did not support this contention. The debt in question was a second mortgage on a property and had been charged-off. The other evidence regarding mortgage debt did not clearly refer to this second mortgage. Applicant provided little evidence concerning his financial condition or to demonstrate that he had received financial counseling. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge stated that Applicant’s debts were numerous and “largely unaddressed.” Decision at 4. He stated that the record did not contain sufficient evidence to show that the debts had been addressed and that similar problems are not likely to arise in the future. Regarding the mortgage, which is far and away the largest of Applicant’s delinquent debts, the Judge found that the record does not establish that it has been addressed. The upshot of the Judge’s analysis is that Applicant had not provided enough evidence to meet his burden of persuasion.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief states that his mortgage has been discharged. To the extent that he is contending that the Judge did not consider his documentary submissions about this debt, he has failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Moreover, he has not demonstrated that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence of this debt. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016). Beyond this, Applicant’s brief fails for lack of specificity. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05920 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016). The Judge’s treatment of this debt in supportable.1 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.”

FOOTNOTES

1 In his Response to the File of Relevant Material, Applicant addressed this second mortgage. He notes that a named creditor took over the first mortgage on a property and that the second mortgage was charged-off. His brief apparently assumes that a charged-off debt has been satisfied, which is not the case. However, even if a debt has been paid, or even if a creditor is not actively seeking payment of a debt, a Judge can still consider the circumstances surrounding the debt–or a lack of evidence explaining these circumstances–in evaluating an applicant’s case for mitigation. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02394 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 17, 2015). Order The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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