CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-10545.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-10545.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-10545.a1

Jun 9, 2017· Hon. James E. Moody· appeal

Summary

A 36-year-old federal contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial concerns. The applicant had over $67,000 in debts, including delinquent student loans and an overpayment of unemployment benefits.

A key issue was the applicant's receipt of unemployment benefits while simultaneously employed full-time, and the subsequent failure to repay the overpayment. Although the applicant made some efforts to address his debts, he did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate claims of payments or the applicability of the statute of limitations for certain debts.

Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant's financial history raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F2raisedDelinquent Debts

Mitigating

F3appliedThe Individual Has Received Financial Counseling
F2rejectedThe Individual Has Made Efforts to Repay DebtsThe judge found that the applicant's efforts were insufficient to mitigate the financial concerns.

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 issuedApr 30, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 21, 2017
Decision dateJun 9, 2017

Cite For

Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Impact of Significant Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Consideration of the Totality of Evidence in 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 involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. 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 belowJuan J. Rivera — 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 relevant evidence and did not weigh it in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The decision was sustainable based on the record and aligned with national security interests.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

William S. Fields
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’s arguments are neither sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor enough to show that the judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 12-10545.a1 DATE: 06/09/2017 DATE: June 9, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-10545

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Roxana Aftahi, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On April 30, 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 21, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera 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 is a 36-year-old employee of a Federal contractor. His security investigation revealed seven SOR debts totaling over $67,000. He testified that most of the SOR debts originated from a two-year period of underemployment in the mid-2000sbut also claimed his financial problems were due to providing financial assistance to his then girlfriend with whom he would gamble at least twice a year. Between 2000 and 2015, he also provided substantial financial support to his mother. Applicant admitted that he received unemployment benefits while working full time. The state initiated legal action against him to recover the overpayment of unemployment benefits. He testified that he has been making phone calls to file a complaint about a lien filed against him, but submitted no written dispute.

Applicant admitted two judgments were for delinquent student loans totaling about $41,000. He submitted evidence showing payments toward the student loans in 2008 and 2009, but provided no documentary evidence of payments since then. He is currently disputing the student loans and believes that the statute of limitations for their collection has passed. Applicant submitted documents reflecting purported payments on a $15,000 debt. The documents, however, fail to show that debt was paid or a connection between the company receiving the payments and the alleged creditor. Moreover, the payments were for than less than the alleged amount and no evidence was presented of a settlement. Applicant has received financial counseling. He provided evidence of efforts to resolve other debts and documents showing he is a good employee.

The Judge’s Analysis The Judge found in favor of Applicant on three debts that he paid. Applicant also paid other debts not alleged in the SOR and seems to be in control of his current finances. Nevertheless, he received unemployment benefits while being fully employed and has refused to pay back the money. He paid some money on his student loans, but then waited for the passing of the statute of limitations to dispute them. He did not establish applicability of the statute of limitations to his student loans. He claims he paid another debt, but failed to provide substantiating evidence. Considering the evidence as a whole, including his demeanor while testifying, his past financial problems continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.

DISCUSSION

Applicant essentially argues that the Judge did not consider all the relevant evidence and mis-weighed the evidence in applying the mitigating conditions and whole-person concept. He cites to, among other matters, his periods of underemployment, the financial support he provided to his girlfriend and mother, and his good character evidence. However, the Judge made findings about those matters. Applicant’s arguments are neither sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor 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. 15-07277 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2017). We give due consideration to the Hearing Office case that Applicant cited, but it is neither binding precedent on the Appeal Board nor sufficient to undermine the Judge’s decision. Id. Additionally, the Judge complied with the requirements of the Directive in his whole- persons analysis by considering the totality of the evidence in reaching his decision. 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, 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