CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-02086.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-02086.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-02086.a1

deniedMay 25, 2017· Hon. James E. Moody· appeal

Summary

A 45-year-old federal contractor was denied a security clearance due to significant financial concerns under Guideline F. The primary issues involved five delinquent student loans and other unresolved debts, which raised trustworthiness concerns. The appeal board specifically cited disqualifying conditions related to a history of not meeting financial obligations.

While the applicant presented some mitigating evidence, including claims of a repayment plan, it was deemed insufficient. The board found that her financial issues remained unresolved and not under control. The presence of this mitigating evidence did not outweigh the unfavorable evidence regarding her financial responsibility.

Ultimately, the applicant failed to provide adequate evidence of repayment or resolution for her debts. Consequently, the appeal board upheld the denial of her trustworthiness designation, concluding that her financial issues were not sufficiently addressed.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had five delinquent student loans and provided insufficient evidence of repayment or resolution of her debts.
The applicant's financial issues were deemed unresolved and not under control, despite her claims of a repayment plan.
The presence of some mitigating evidence did not outweigh the unfavorable evidence regarding her financial responsibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of good-faith efforts to repay creditors.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's circumstances, such as divorce and unemployment, did not mitigate her financial irresponsibility.

Key Rule Quoted

“The standard applicable to trustworthiness cases is that is that set forth in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) regarding security clearances: such a determination '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 10, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 6, 2017
Decision dateMay 25, 2017

Cite For

Importance of Financial Responsibility in Trustworthiness Determinations
Evaluation of Mitigating Evidence in Financial Cases
Standards for Trustworthiness Determinations Consistent 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.

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 argues that she has not breached her position of trust, has not been disciplined in her current job, and is not someone who can be blackmailed. The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable trustworthiness decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-02086.a1 DATE: 05/25/2017 DATE: May 25, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 15-02086

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 trustworthiness designation. On October 10, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–trustworthiness 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 April 6, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant is a 45-year-old employee of a Federal contractor. She is divorced and experienced periods of unemployment. The SOR alleges, in part, that she has five delinquent student loans. She asserted that she had an arrangement to pay $134 per month on those loans. She provided one receipt showing a $134 payment in 2015 and reflecting a total balance of over $150,000. She presented no other evidence of payments on the student loans. Applicant asserted four other debts have been settled with zero balance. She provided proof of payment on one debt, but provided no documentation substantiating the other delinquent accounts were settled. In her security clearance application, Applicant disclosed that she was involved in an automobile accident and a settlement was pending that would be used to resolve delinquent medical debts. Although she received the settlement years ago, the medical debts still are not resolved. The Judge’s Analysis Many of the delinquent debts are over five years old. She provided documentation showing one payment on her student loans, proof of paying another debt, and scribbling in the margin of a collection letter that may be indicative of a payment on a third debt. She produced no other documentation showing payments or progress on the alleged debts. While her divorce, periods of unemployment, and automobile accident are arguably conditions beyond her control, she has not acted responsibly under the circumstances. She provided no evidence of counseling, good-faith efforts to repay creditors, or that her financial problems are being resolved or under control.

DISCUSSION

In the appeal brief, Applicant states that she has a repayment plan in which she pays $5 per month on the student loans and that they are out of default. She also provided an explanation for why she did not use her automobile accident settlement to pay the medical debts. This information was not previously presented to the Judge and constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board may not consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant requests a temporary stay so she can locate creditors and take care of the debts. The Appeal Board does not have authority to grant an interim, conditional, or probationary trustworthiness determination. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 14-00700 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 24, 2014). Applicant argues that she has not breached her position of trust, has not been disciplined in her current job, and is not someone who can be blackmailed. The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable trustworthiness decision. As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See e.g., ADP Case No. 15-01270 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 16, 2016). The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. The standard applicable to trustworthiness cases is that is that set forth in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) regarding security clearances: such a determination “. . . may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” See e.g., ADP Case No. 15-01270, supra, at 2. See also Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied.

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