CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-06744.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-06744.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-06744.a1

Nov 7, 2016· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor and military veteran was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from multiple delinquent debts, including both state and federal tax liens. The judges determined that these financial issues raised concerns about the applicant's judgment and reliability, which are essential for national security positions.

Specifically, the applicant failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence of payment plans for his outstanding debts. Additionally, the absence of a recent financial statement hindered the assessment of his current financial control and responsibility.

While some mitigating conditions were considered, the disqualifying conditions related to delinquent debt and a history of not meeting financial obligations ultimately led to the denial. The judges concluded there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the applicant's financial responsibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedDelinquent Debts

Mitigating

F.4rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support claims of circumstances affecting his financial situation.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Made a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant failed to corroborate claims of efforts to resolve debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“A Judge should consider the circumstances underlying an applicant’s financial problems for what they reveal about the applicant’s judgment, self-control, etc.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 24, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 20, 2016
Decision dateNov 7, 2016Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Evaluation of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Financial Issues on Judgment and Reliability
Consideration of Circumstances Affecting Financial Difficulties

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 decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis of the applicant's financial issues and their implications for national security.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Robinson Gales — denied the clearance (split findings)

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 no error in the Judge's evaluation of the applicant's financial delinquencies and concluded that the applicant did not demonstrate the good judgment and reliability required for access to classified information.

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

William S. Fields
James E. Moody
Jean E. Smallin

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: A Judge should consider the circumstances underlying an applicant’s financial problems for what they reveal about the applicant’s judgment, self-control, etc. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-06744.a1 DATE: 11/07/2016 DATE: November 7, 2016 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-06744

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 July 24, 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 20, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales 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 works for a Defense contractor. He served in the military from 1996 to 2001. He has held clearances since 2000. Applicant’s SOR lists several delinquent debts. Three of them are liens for state taxes, and one is a lien for Federal taxes. Applicant claimed that he had entered into payment plans for his taxes, although he did not corroborate. Other debts are for two charged-off automobile loans (in the amounts of about $23,000 and $366) and another is for a credit card. As with the tax liens, Applicant did not corroborate his claims of efforts to resolve his debts. Applicant’s problems were affected by a deployment overseas during which time tax was not being withheld from his income. They were also affected by the expiration of his student loan deferment and by his wife’s unemployment. Applicant did not furnish a recent financial statement. Previous information that he submitted concerning his financial situation was not accurate. The Judge found that it is difficult to determine if Applicant’s finances are under control. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge resolved some of the SOR allegations in Applicant’s favor. However, for the tax liens, the automobile loans, and the credit card referenced above, he entered adverse findings. He concluded that Applicant’s financial delinquencies were not infrequent. He stated that Applicant never explained why he did not at least pay the tax liens that were for small amounts and that Applicant had not provided sufficient information about his wife’s unemployment to mitigate the concerns raised by the SOR. The Judge also cited to a paucity of evidence supporting Applicant’s claims of efforts at debt resolution. He concluded that Applicant had not acted responsibly in regard to his financial problems.

DISCUSSION

Applicant quotes the statement of concern regarding Guideline F. See Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 18. He denies that he is at risk of committing illegal acts to generate funds. However, the concern under Guideline F is not simply that an applicant might be tempted to compromise classified information in order to pay his debts. A Judge should also consider the extent to which an applicant’s circumstances cast doubt upon his judgment, self control, and other characteristics essential to protecting national security information. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-09719 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2016). We find no error in the manner in which the Judge evaluated the concerns arising from Applicant’s delinquent debts. Applicant cites to his good security record and to evidence concerning the circumstances underlying his debts. In doing so, he includes evidence that was not contained in the record, including a document that post-dates the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record or shown that he mis-weighed the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016). The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. A person who fails to fulfill legal obligations, such as paying taxes, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01894 at 5 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015). See Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union Local 473 v. McElroy, 284 F.2d 173, 183 (D.C. Cir. 1960), aff’d, 367 U.S. 886 (1961). 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board