CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-04153.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-04153.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04153.a1

Sep 20, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A military retiree with a master's degree was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial delinquencies. These included unpaid taxes and child support obligations.

The applicant failed to present a workable plan for resolving his debts or a budget demonstrating financial responsibility. His admission that procrastination was the cause of his financial issues did not mitigate the security concerns.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, citing the applicant's failure to demonstrate financial responsibility and provide a viable plan to address his outstanding debts. The clearance was ultimately DENIED.

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 issuedNov 25, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 20, 2016
Decision dateSep 20, 2016

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Importance of Providing a Viable Plan for Debt Resolution
Standard for Clearance Decisions Emphasizing 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 was brought by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge's evaluation of the evidence was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — 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 weighed the evidence in an arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law manner.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge did not weigh the evidence in an arbitrary or capricious manner and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

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 failed to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-04153.a1 DATE: 09/20/2016 DATE: September 20, 2016 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-04153

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 November 25, 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 hearing. On June 20, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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 weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant has two children from a former marriage. One of them lives with him, although there is no formal custody agreement. Applicant has a master’s degree. He served in the military from 1986 to 2007, retiring as an E-6. He has worked for his current employer since 2013, earning $92,000 a year. He was unemployed from November 2012 until July 2013. Applicant’s SOR lists several financial delinquencies. He failed to file his federal and state tax returns for 2010 through 2014. He owes nearly $24,000 in unpaid child support, has a judgment against him for $4,600 for rent owed a former landlord, and has two collection accounts for unpaid medical bills. In 2001, Applicant was discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He stated that he and his former wife were living beyond their means. Applicant attributed his financial problems to procrastination. Although he contacted a tax assistance company to help him resolve his tax problems, he could not afford the required fee. He presented no workable plan for resolving his debts, nor did he provide a budget that would provide insight into his ability to resolve his debts and avoid future difficulties. The Judge’s Analysis Applicant has acquired his delinquent debts after his 2001 bankruptcy discharge. He was unemployed for several months, but he did not provide sufficient evidence of responsible action. He provided no evidence of circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from filing his tax returns. He has received no credit counseling, nor has he shown that his financial problems are under control. He has not established a track record of financial responsibility. Applicant does not defend his irresponsibility, admitting that he failed to file his tax returns due to procrastination.

DISCUSSION

Applicant states that many of his problems were out of his control. He also states that he is trying to have his child support reduced and that he is in the process of taking care of his tax returns. This argument is not enough to undermine the Judge’s material findings of fact, nor 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. 14-06686 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 27, 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 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