CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-02050.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-02050.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-02050.a1

Jun 12, 2017· Hon. James E. Moody· appeal

Summary

A security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) for an applicant, a single mother with two children, due to unresolved financial difficulties. The applicant had numerous delinquent debts and judgments against her, which raised disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19.

The denial was primarily based on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient documentary evidence to support her claims of debt resolution. The judge determined that the applicant did not successfully rebut the presumption that all evidence had been considered in the initial assessment.

Ultimately, the appeal board affirmed the denial, underscoring the applicant's lack of demonstrated debt resolution and the critical importance of national security in all clearance decisions.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial 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 21, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 24, 2017
Decision dateJun 12, 2017

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Documentary Evidence in Financial Considerations
National Security Interests as a Primary Factor in Clearance 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 proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — 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 did not err in his decision, as the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claims regarding her financial difficulties and did not demonstrate that the Judge's decision was arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

William S. Fields
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 rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-02050.a1 DATE: 06/12/2017 DATE: June 12, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-02050

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 21, 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 24, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., 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 and Analysis Single with two children, Applicant has worked for her present employer for about a year. She makes around $1,500 every two weeks, which is a significant reduction from the $3,000 she earned each pay period up until 2009, when she lost her job. She was out of work for about nine months, but her subsequent employment entailed significant fluctuations in her pay rate. Because of these circumstances, Applicant began experiencing financial difficulties. Applicant has numerous delinquent debts. For example, she has several judgments against her resulting from evictions from two apartment complexes, a vehicle repossession, and numerous collection accounts for telecommunication services, medical expenses, etc. The Judge found that Applicant had not provided evidence of debt resolution. He stated that Applicant had failed to present documentary evidence in support of her dispute of certain debts or her claim to have attempted to resolve her financial problems.

DISCUSSION

Applicant reiterates her testimony about her effort at debt resolution. She also discusses matters that she believes provides context for her financial difficulties, such as her status as a single mother, her unemployment, and her claim that she did not owe certain debts alleged in the SOR. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither has she 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 states that her brief contains additional information concerning her financial condition. However, we cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, principally that Applicant had not corroborated her testimony with documentary evidence.1 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.”

FOOTNOTES

1 “The record was held open through September 6, 2016, to afford Applicant the opportunity to submit documentation . . . With no additional materials submitted, the record was closed[.]” Decision at 2. Order The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, 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