CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-00019.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-00019.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-00019.a1

May 11, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $19,000 in delinquent debts. The applicant admitted to most of these debts, which raised concerns under Disqualifying Condition F.1.

Despite acknowledging the debts, the applicant failed to provide adequate documentation of his current financial status or any specific mitigation efforts. The judge determined that the applicant's actions were insufficient to demonstrate control over his financial situation.

Ultimately, the appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant had not met the necessary standards to align a security clearance with national security interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial 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 issuedOct 15, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 21, 2017
Decision dateMay 11, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Stability as a Basis for Clearance Denial
The Necessity for Clearance Decisions to 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 was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on delinquent debts. The Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGregg A. Cervi — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge’s findings were based on substantial evidence, including the Applicant’s admissions and credit reports. The Judge articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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: The Judge’s material findings about the delinquent debts were based on substantial evidence, including Applicant’s admissions, his security clearance application, and credit reports. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-00019.a1 DATE: 05/11/2017 DATE: May 11, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-00019

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 October 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) 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 weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm.1 The Judge’s Findings of Fact The SOR lists 17 delinquent debts totaling about $19,000. In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted most of the delinquent debts. Record evidence establishes two of the alleged debts are duplicates and two have been paid. No evidence has been submitted showing the remaining debts have been satisfied. Applicant provided no documentation of his current financial status, budget, financial counseling, or other mitigation efforts. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that no mitigation is appropriate. Besides the two duplicate debts and two paid debts, the other debts remain unresolved. Applicant’s efforts are inadequate to demonstrate that his financial situation is under control, and he is willing and able to resolve his delinquent debts.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief includes documents that post-date the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider such new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant contends that the information in the SOR is inaccurate and the Judge based his decision on non-factual information. We do not find this argument persuasive. The Judge’s material findings about the delinquent debts were based on substantial evidence, including Applicant’s admissions, his security clearance application, and credit reports. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14- 02154 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 25, 2016). 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. 1 While the case was pending before the Board, a second brief arrived from Applicant. The parties are only entitled to one brief. The Board’s decision relies on the first brief we received. 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