CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05357.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-05357.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05357.a1

Mar 17, 2016· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, a long-term employee with a history of holding a security clearance, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from unresolved delinquent debts exceeding $30,000. Despite the applicant's good reputation and circumstances that affected her finances, the judge determined that insufficient efforts were made to address these debts.

Specifically, the applicant failed to demonstrate responsible action regarding her delinquent financial obligations. The judge found that the applicant did not provide adequate information about her efforts to resolve these issues. Furthermore, the applicant's reliance on the charged-off status of her debts was deemed an insufficient response to the concerns raised under Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20(a).

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient efforts to mitigate the financial concerns, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial 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 issuedDec 29, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 24, 2015
Decision dateMar 17, 2016

Cite For

Failure to Resolve Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Efforts to Address Delinquent Debts
Reliance on Charged-off Status of Debts as Insufficient for Clearance Approval

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 her 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 no harmful error in the analysis or conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — 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 adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge considered all evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was not arbitrary or capricious.

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
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: Applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Applicant’s argument is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-05357.a1 DATE: 03/17/2016 DATE: March 17, 2016 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-05357

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Travis D. Tull, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 29, 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). On December 24, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch 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 has worked for her current employer since 1984 and has held a security clearance since then. Applicant’s SOR lists several delinquent debts. The Judge entered adverse findings for three of them, each exceeding $30,000 in amount. Applicant’s financial problems were affected by her having co-signed a student loan for her daughter, who, after a year, decided not to return to college. The student loan, which was one of the three adverse findings, became due in 2008. Applicant received a partial refund from the school in the amount of $10,000. In addition, Applicant’s mother suffered illness, necessitating her moving in with Applicant. Applicant became responsible for her mother’s financial and medical needs, and, after her mother’s death, paid her property taxes. Another loan has been reduced to judgment, Applicant owing a little over $37,000. She made some payments but became ill and was on disability for a time. The last payments she made on this debt were in 2013. The third debt found against Applicant is for a collection account of nearly $31,000. It was closed out in 2010, remains unpaid, and no longer appears on her credit reports. Applicant’s daughter signed an affidavit accepting responsibility for the student loan and for the $31,000 debt. There is no documentation to show that she is making payments. Applicant’s salary is about $72,000, and she has a monthly remainder of about $500. She is current on her daily expenses, her mortgage, and her car payment. Applicant has incurred no new debts. She enjoys a good reputation for diligence and responsibility. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge stated that Applicant’s debt from 2008 is not resolved, preventing a conclusion that it happened so long ago as not to impugn her judgment or reliability. Though noting circumstances outside Applicant’s control that had an impact on her finances, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to the three delinquent debts addressed above. The Judge cited to evidence that Applicant has been steadily employed for several years but has not made efforts to pay her debts, relying instead on their not appearing on her credit reports or their charged-off status. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to evidence such as Applicant’s years of employment, her having held a clearance for many years without incident or concern, her good reputation, and her adverse circumstances. However, she concluded that Applicant had not presented enough information about her efforts at debt resolution. She also noted Applicant’s reliance on the charged-off status of one of her large accounts. Accordingly, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not established a track record of debt payment.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to record evidence she submitted in her own behalf, such as her illness as well as that of her mother. She also cites to evidence about her debts, including that the student loan had been reduced from the amount alleged in the SOR. The Judge made findings about the evidence that Applicant has cited. Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither are they enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06093 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 4, 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 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