CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-04764.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-04764.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04764.a1

Jun 1, 2017· Hon. James E. Moody· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant unresolved delinquent debts. The applicant had 11 outstanding debts, some dating back to 2010, totaling approximately $42,000.

The denial was based on the lack of evidence of any payments made toward these debts, the absence of a reasonable debt repayment plan, and no indication that the applicant had sought credit counseling or had his financial situation under control. These factors raised concerns under Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20(a).

The applicant appealed the decision, arguing that the judge had arbitrarily weighed the evidence. However, the appeal board found the applicant's arguments insufficient to overturn the initial ruling, affirming the denial of the security clearance based on the unresolved financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial 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 issuedJan 8, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 15, 2017
Decision dateJun 1, 2017

Cite For

Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on the Weighing of Evidence by Judges

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 weighing of the evidence was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEric H. Borgstrom — 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 weighed the evidence in a manner that 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 that the applicant's arguments did not demonstrate that the Judge's weighing of the evidence was arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural compliance

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’s appeal brief includes information that was not presented to the Judge for consideration. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. The balance of Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-04764.a1 DATE: 06/01/2017 DATE: June 1, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-04764

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 January 8, 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 February 15, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Eric H. Borgstrom 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 weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant’s 11 delinquent debts total approximately $42,000. Some date back to 2010. Applicant presented no documentary evidence of any payments toward those debts. They are ongoing and unresolved. Between early 2009 and mid-2014, he attended college and was unemployed or employed part time; however, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that he acted responsibly to address his delinquent debts or to develop and implement a reasonable debt repayment plan. There is neither evidence of credit counseling nor clear indications that his financial situation is under control. To the extent that he disputes a collection account and two delinquent rent accounts, there is no reasonable explanation for the disputes or documentation to corroborate his claims.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s appeal brief includes information that was not presented to the Judge for consideration. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.1 The balance of Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016). 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, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.” 1 Applicant contends that the information he is providing in his appeal brief is not new evidence, but support for information previously submitted and articulated in his response to interrogatories. We do not find this argument persuasive. The record does not contain either interrogatories or a response to them. Even if he is referring to his Response to the SOR, instead of interrogatories, his argument still does not have merit because much of the information he is presenting was not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration.

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