CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-00778.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-00778.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-00778.a1

Apr 5, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to a history of unresolved financial issues. The denial was based on twelve delinquent debts, which were substantiated by credit reports and the applicant's own admissions.

The judge determined that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of efforts to address these debts. This included an unsigned offer in compromise to the IRS, which was not considered a concrete step toward resolution. Furthermore, the applicant had not sought financial counseling and had taken minimal action to resolve his delinquencies.

The judge concluded that this pattern demonstrated financial irresponsibility, posing a risk to national security. The appeal board subsequently affirmed the denial, citing the applicant's lack of demonstrated financial responsibility as the basis for upholding the original decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial 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 30, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 23, 2017
Decision dateApr 5, 2017

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Financial Responsibility in National Security Determinations
Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution Efforts Leading to Adverse 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 a denial of a security clearance based on 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 of the applicant's financial situation.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDavid M. White — 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's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance. The Judge's analysis was not arbitrary or capricious, and the applicant did not demonstrate that he had taken sufficient steps to resolve his financial issues.

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 shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-00778.a1 DATE: 04/05/2017 DATE: April 5, 2017 In Re: ------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-00778

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 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 January 23, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge David M. White 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’s SOR alleges twelve delinquent debts. They are substantiated by Applicant’s admissions to the SOR and by the contents of his credit reports. One of the allegations, a Federal tax lien for about $2,280, had grown to nearly $39,000 by the time of his most recent credit report. Applicant presented no evidence that he had addressed his debts. He submitted an account statement regarding a medical debt, but the account number does not match any of those contained in the SOR. He also submitted an offer in compromise to the IRS. However, it is unsigned, and there is no indication that it had actually been submitted for approval. Moreover, this document states that Applicant’s monthly expenditures exceed his income. The Judge found that Applicant had not sought financial counseling and “essentially did nothing to pursue resolution of any of his alleged delinquencies since receiving his SOR.” Decision at 3. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge stated that there is no evidence that Applicant’s delinquencies are due to causes outside his control or that he has acted responsibly in regard to them. Though noting Applicant’s years of service to the U.S., the Judge stated that Applicant’s history of financial irresponsibility indicates that his problems are more likely to get worse than better.

DISCUSSION

Applicant challenges the Judge’s conclusion that he had done little if anything to resolve his debts. He cites to the medical account statement and the offer in compromise as evidence that he is attempting to address his financial problems. He advises that he had not received statements regarding other medical debts during the time that the Judge allotted. He contends that he is doing everything he can to get his financial house in order. However, the Judge’s treatment of the cited documents is consistent with the record that was before him. Applicant has not shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08842 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 14, 2017). Even if the evidence that Applicant cited in his appeal brief demonstrates some movement toward financial responsibility, it does not undermine the Judge’s analysis of Applicant’s significant history of delinquent debt, in particular his growing debt to the IRS. 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