CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-06259.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-06259.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-06259.a1

Jun 19, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to numerous unresolved delinquent debts. These included education loans and other accounts that had not been sufficiently addressed.

While the applicant claimed to have taken financial classes and hired a debt resolution company, the judge found a lack of corroborating evidence for these efforts. Specifically, there was no proof of payments made to the debt resolution company, and the financial classes were deemed insufficient to mitigate the overall concern.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant did not demonstrate a consistent track record of addressing his financial obligations. Disqualifying condition AG ¶ 19 was raised, and while mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(c) were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the security concerns. The denial was affirmed on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe judge noted circumstances outside the applicant's control but found insufficient evidence of debt resolution.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedThe Individual Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant claimed to have taken financial classes, but the judge stated he had not had formal counseling.

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 31, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldMar 31, 2017
Decision dateJun 19, 2017Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution Under Guideline F
Impact of Personal Circumstances on Financial Issues
Whole-person Analysis in Security Clearance Decisions

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 from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge failed to apply the whole-person concept. 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 ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Whole-person analysis — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge failed to properly apply the whole-person concept.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge considered all evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, affirming the denial of the security clearance.

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
James F. Duffy

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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 12-06259.a1 DATE: 06/19/2017 DATE: June 19, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-06259

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 December 31, 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 March 31, 2017, after the hearing, 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 raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge failed properly to apply the whole-person concept. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant’s debt problem arose due to his (now) ex-wife having suffered injury from an automobile accident, which, along with her mother’s illness and surgery, caused the wife to miss work. As a consequence, the couple had to rely on Applicant’s salary alone, which was not sufficient, and they fell into debt. The couple divorced in 2013. Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, for example, education loans, accounts owed to a bank, etc. Applicant entered into an agreement with a debt resolution company to address some of his debts. He entered into a plan, with payments to begin in March 2016. Applicant presented no evidence of any payments. Applicant’s education loans were made the subject of a payment plan as well, and he made payments from October 2015 through January 2016. Applicant stated that payments continued until August 2016, at which time the plan lapsed, and his back up plan is to get a second job. In addition, the SOR alleges a delinquent mortgage, which is his wife’s responsibility pursuant to the divorce decree. It also cites to a charged-off account that Applicant believed was included in the first payment plan described above, although he presented no corroboration for this claim. Applicant’s character references describe him as reliable and trustworthy. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge resolved the mortgage debt in Applicant’s favor. The remainder, however, resulted in adverse findings. Though noting circumstances outside Applicant’s control that affected his debts, the Judge stated that the education loans appear to be “at a standoff” and that there is insufficient documentary proof that the other debts are being addressed. Directive at 6. The Judge stated that Applicant has not had formal debt counseling and that his financial reserves are “scant.” Id. at 7. In the whole-person analysis the Judge reiterated his comments about a paucity of corroborating evidence and concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated a track record of debt resolution.

DISCUSSION

Some of Applicant’s comments on appeal pertain to the mortgage loan, which the Judge resolved favorably to him. He also cites to his efforts at debt resolution, his having hired a firm to address his financial problems, and to his extensive documentary response to the SOR, which includes documents concerning debt disputes, payments plans, etc. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017). Reading the Decision as a whole, we conclude that the Judge evaluated Applicant’s security concerns in light of the entirety of the evidence, which is what a whole-person analysis requires. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06653 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 18, 2016). Applicant states that he has taken some financial classes on line. This is supported by a Certificate of Completion attached to Applicant’s response to the SOR. This document is not totally consistent with the Judge’s comment in the Analysis portion of the Decision that Applicant had not had formal counseling. However, to the extent that this is an error, it did not likely affect the overall decision. Therefore, it is harmless. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00535 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 13, 2017). The Judge examined the relevant evidence 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board