CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-00906.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-00906.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-00906.a1

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

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial difficulties. These issues included delinquent payments on a primary mortgage and a charged-off second mortgage. The applicant attributed these problems to broader economic conditions and advice received from others, rather than personal responsibility.

During the review, the applicant failed to provide corroborating evidence for his claims regarding the resolution of his mortgage issues. Furthermore, he acknowledged possessing the financial means to address his debts but maintained that he was not personally responsible for doing so.

The judge determined that the applicant's financial irresponsibility was not justified and presented a risk to national security. The appeal board subsequently affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient responsibility for his debts, which was deemed inconsistent with national security interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

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 issuedMar 16, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMay 25, 2017
Decision dateJul 19, 2017Appeal affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Importance of Corroborating Claims Regarding Financial Obligations
Standard for Granting Security Clearance Related to 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 who was denied a security clearance 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 conclusion reached by the Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — 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 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 adverse decision. The applicant did not demonstrate that the Judge's weighing of the evidence was arbitrary or capricious.

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
William S. Fields

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 noted evidence that Applicant believed that his mortgage loans for the house were bad for him. However, she noted his statement that he had the means to address his delinquent debts but believes that he is not responsible for doing so. She stated that merely because applicant decided that the loans for the house were not in his favor he was not justified in ignoring them. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-00906.a1 DATE: 07/19/2017 DATE: July 19, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-00906

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 March 16, 2016, 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 May 25, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch 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 financed a house that had a high interest rate. When the economy faltered, Applicant found that he owed more on the house than it was worth. He tried to get a loan modification but was denied. Upon “the advice of several people” Applicant stopped making payments. Decision at 2. Eventually he found a buyer for a short sale. Applicant provided no corroboration for his claim that the first mortgage was resolved through the short sale. His credit report shows that the second mortgage had been charged off. Applicant’s credit report also shows a delinquent account for nearly $700. Applicant claimed that it was closed. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge noted evidence that Applicant believed that his mortgage loans for the house were bad for him. However, she noted his statement that he had the means to address his delinquent debts but believes that he is not responsible for doing so. She stated that merely because applicant decided that the loans for the house were not in his favor he was not justified in ignoring them. Applicant served in the military from 1994 to 2002 and has held a clearance since 2004.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief provides context for his financial difficulties, and he argues that he is not the kind of person who would fail to pay his debts. He believes that his statements as reflected in the record did not put him in a sufficiently favorable light. He also cites to his military service and to his having held a clearance for many years. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor 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). 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, Encl. 2 App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board