CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-01495.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-01495.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-01495.a1

Jul 14, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor and military retiree was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of unpaid debts and bankruptcy. The applicant presented two disqualifying conditions, F3 and F4, related to financial irresponsibility and a history of not meeting financial obligations.

While the applicant cited family medical emergencies as a contributing factor to his financial difficulties, the judge applied mitigating conditions F2 and F3, acknowledging some efforts to address the issues. However, these were deemed insufficient. The denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide corroborating evidence of debt resolution, his history of bankruptcy with limited payments on outstanding debts, and a lack of demonstrated control over his financial problems.

The applicant also did not show that he had sought financial counseling to manage his situation. Ultimately, the judge found insufficient evidence of responsible financial behavior, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F4rejectedFinancial Problems Due to Circumstances Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge acknowledged the applicant's claims but found them insufficient to mitigate the financial concerns.

Mitigating

F2raisedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant cited family medical emergencies as contributing factors.
F3rejectedThe Person Has Made a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Has Otherwise Resolved DebtsThe applicant's limited payments and lack of corroborating evidence did not demonstrate a good faith effort.

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 issuedNov 4, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 31, 2017
Decision dateJul 14, 2017

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Family Medical Emergencies on Financial Considerations
Standards for Granting Security Clearances 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 was brought by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge did not adequately consider his family's medical emergencies. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the Judge had considered all evidence and that the applicant did not show that the decision was arbitrary or capricious.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowClaude R. Heiny — 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 contends that the Judge did not consider his family’s medical emergencies.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge made detailed findings regarding the applicant's financial issues and family medical emergencies, and the applicant did not demonstrate that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

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
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: Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider his family’s medical emergencies. However, the Judge made detailed findings about these matters and discussed them in his analysis. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-01495.a1 DATE: 07/14/2017 DATE: July 14, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-01495

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 November 4, 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 31, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny 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 has worked for a Defense contractor since 2005. He served in the military, retiring in 2006. His total take-home pay, including his salary and his military pension, is about $98,000 a year. Applicant has experienced financial problems, his SOR alleging unpaid debts for credit cards, collection accounts, etc. Applicant’s problems were affected by his son’s expensive medical treatment as well as by treatment for his wife’s illness and by her job losses. The Judge found that Applicant had paid some of his SOR debts and that he was making payments on others. However, he stated that Applicant did not corroborate many of his claims of debt resolution. In addition, Applicant filed for bankruptcy protection in 2000, although the reasons for this action were not set forth in the record. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge stated that, since first being asked about his debts in 2012, Applicant has shown payment of about $1,200 out of a total of $36,000 in delinquent financial obligations. Though noting Applicant’s evidence about family medical problems and his wife’s job losses, which were circumstances outside his control, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not shown responsible action, given his rather meager record of addressing his financial problems. Applicant has had no financial counseling, nor has he presented evidence that his problems are under control. Although some of his debts may have been forgiven, there is no corroborating evidence regarding this. Given Applicant’s annual income and his limited evidence of actual payment, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not mitigated the concerns arising from his financial delinquencies.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider his family’s medical emergencies. However, the Judge made detailed findings about these matters and discussed them in his analysis. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither has he demonstrated 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 contends that a substantial number of his SOR debts are not collectable due to the running of the statute of limitations. However, even if that is so, the extent to which a debt may not be legally enforceable is not, in and of itself, evidence of responsible action or of a good-faith effort to pay it. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02394 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 17, 2015). 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