CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-02823.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-02823.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-02823.a1

Jul 11, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 55-year-old contractor employee, who previously held a security clearance, was denied a renewed clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from unresolved delinquent debts totaling over $62,000. The applicant failed to provide documentation demonstrating payments toward these debts, and the judge found no evidence that the financial obligations were being resolved or were under control.

The decision highlighted the applicant's inability to show a track record of timely repayment. While the applicant claimed future intent to pay off the debts, these promises were deemed insufficient without concrete actions or a plan for resolution.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied because the applicant did not adequately mitigate the financial concerns raised by the substantial outstanding debts, specifically failing to satisfy the requirements for resolving or controlling the delinquent accounts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel a favorable decision.

Key Rule Quoted

“It is well established that promises to pay off delinquent debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of timely debt repayment.”
— ISCR Case No. 07-09304 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 6, 2008)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 4, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself pro se.
Hearing heldApr 28, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason.
Decision dateJul 11, 2017Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution Under Guideline F
Importance of a Track Record of Timely Debt Repayment
Disagreement with Evidence Weighing Does Not Demonstrate Error in Judgment.

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 unresolved delinquent debts under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's decision regarding the applicant's financial situation and trustworthiness.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — 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 contended that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's determination regarding the unresolved debts and the ongoing security concerns they raised. The Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
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: It is well established that promises to pay off delinquent debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of timely debt repayment. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-02823.a1 DATE: 07/11/2017 DATE: July 11, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-02823

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 December 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 decision on the written record. On April 28, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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 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 55-year-old employee of a contractor who has held a security clearance since 1998. When his father died in 2003, Applicant and his stepmother were designated co-trustees and beneficiaries of a revocable trust. Applicant attributed the delinquent debts to payment of a lawsuit settlement that resulted in termination of the trust in 2010. Credit reports indicate the debts became delinquent between March and October 2012. In 2013, Applicant filed a lawsuit against his former attorney in the trust lawsuit. Applicant settled this latter lawsuit for about $250,000 with payments to be made to him in installments starting in 2014. The SOR lists seven delinquent debts totaling over $62,000. Applicant provided no documentation showing payments toward any of the delinquent debts. He has done nothing to resolved the listed debts, and the evidence does not show the debts are being resolved or are under control. Absent independent evidence that Applicant is addressing the delinquent debts, they raise ongoing concerns about his current trustworthiness and judgment.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends that Judge erred in applying the disqualifying and mitigating conditions. He cites that he is willing to pay his debts as soon as he is able to do so without creating more financial burden on himself and highlights facts that support various mitigating conditions. The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance 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., ISCR Case No. 15-01652 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 7, 2017). We find no error in the Judge’s determination that the evidence does not show the debts are being resolved and raise ongoing security concerns about Applicant’s current trustworthiness and judgment. In this regard, we note that Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) states Applicant failed to provide any evidence of actions taken to resolve the delinquent debt. Applicant was sent a copy of the FORM and was given 30 days to submit additional information. He did not submit a response to the FORM. It is well established that promises to pay off delinquent debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of timely debt repayment. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-09304 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 6, 2008).

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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board