CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05928.a1 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date5/30/2017
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 14-05928.h1) →
Participants
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline KHandling Protected Information · For Applicant
- Guideline MUse of Information Technology · For Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 14-05928.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05928.a1

May 30, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, represented by counsel, was denied a security clearance primarily under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), with additional concerns raised under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), J (Criminal Conduct), K (Handling Protected Information), and M (Use of Information Technology).

The denial stemmed from the applicant's significant and unresolved financial issues. He had 14 delinquent debts totaling over $21,000. Although the applicant engaged a credit repair service and reported making monthly payments, he failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating the resolution of these debts or his current financial status.

The judge determined that the applicant's persistent financial problems, specifically AG ¶ 20(a), raised serious doubts about his judgment and reliability, leading to the denial of his 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 issuedAug 15, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 21, 2017
Decision dateMay 30, 2017

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Providing Evidence of Financial Stability in Security Clearance Cases
The Standard for Granting Clearance Must Align with 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 involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations and other concerns. 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 belowGregg A. Cervi — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline EGuideline KGuideline MGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed 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 did not weigh it in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The adverse decision was affirmed as sustainable on the record.

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; Guideline E; Guideline K; Guideline M; Guideline J DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-05928.a1 DATE: 05/30/2017 DATE: May 30, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-05928

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Ryan C. Nerney, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On August 15, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline K (Handling Protected Information), Guideline M (Use of Information Technology Systems) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On February 21, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi 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. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guidelines E, K, M, and J are not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issue raised on appeal: Applicant has worked for a Defense contractor since 2012. He experienced periods of unemployment during the years preceding his current job. He has previously held a security clearance. His SOR alleges 14 delinquent debts, totaling over $21,000. He claimed during his interview that his financial problems were caused by his unemployment. He has engaged the services of a credit repair company and pays $600 per month toward satisfaction of his debts, though he did not indicate which of the SOR debts are being addressed through this service. He provided no evidence of his current financial status, budget, financial counseling, or other mitigating efforts. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge commented that Applicant’s financial problems were longstanding. He concluded that Applicant has not acted responsibly in regard to his debts and that Applicant’s problems continue to cast doubt on his judgment and reliability. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge stated that Applicant did not provide evidence of debt resolution, despite his having had ample time and opportunity to have addressed his security-significant issues. Moreover, he provided no corroboration for his claim that his financial condition is satisfactory.

DISCUSSION

Applicant claims that the Judge did not consider all of the record evidence, citing to such things as his interrogatory answers, his having hired the debt repair company, etc. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017). Applicant cites to a Hearing Office case that he believes supports his effort to obtain a favorable decision. We give this case due consideration as persuasive authority. However, each case must be decided on its own merits. Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b). Moreover, Hearing Office decisions are binding neither on other Hearing Office Judges nor on the Board. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01416 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. Feb. 15, 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