CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-06534.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-06534.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-06534.a1

Aug 3, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, represented by counsel, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent debts. The applicant owed nearly $120,000, which included unpaid state taxes. This financial history raised concerns under Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20.

The denial was based on several factors. The applicant failed to take any action to resolve his debts after being notified of the security concerns. Furthermore, he did not provide any documentation to substantiate his claims that he was disputing the amounts owed.

Ultimately, the judges determined that the applicant had not demonstrated the necessary good judgment and reliability required for a security clearance, leading to the denial of his application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as paying taxes when due, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 30, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 24, 2017
Decision dateAug 3, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Importance of Resolving Debts to Demonstrate Reliability and Good Judgment
Failure to Provide Evidence of Good Faith Efforts to Resolve Financial Issues

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 seeking a security clearance who was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider all evidence and misapplied mitigating conditions. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowPhilip S. Howe — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to consider all of the evidence in the record.
Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed properly to apply the relevant mitigating conditions.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant did not demonstrate that the Judge's findings were arbitrary or capricious. The applicant's financial issues and lack of resolution of debts were significant factors in the decision.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
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: A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as paying taxes when due, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgement and reliability required of those granted access to classified information. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-06534.a1 DATE: 08/03/2017 DATE: August 3, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-06534

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Edward H. Passman, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On March 30, 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 hearing. On March 24, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge failed to consider all of the evidence in the record and whether the Judge failed properly to apply the relevant mitigating conditions. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, for such things as medical expenses, energy bills, etc., totaling almost $120,000. He demonstrated that he had paid two of them, one for telephone services and another for cable television services. The remainder, however, were not resolved as of the close of the record. Applicant’s debts include liens for unpaid state taxes. These liens were listed on Applicant’s latest credit report. He stated that he had worked with his state tax authority to recalculate and pay them but was not successful. He submitted no documents to corroborate his claimed disputes of the amounts owed, and these liens are not resolved. A Federal tax lien for nearly $173,000 was released in 2010. This debt was not alleged in the SOR. Applicant divorced his wife in 2016. His wife was supposed to pay some of the debts. Applicant took no action after the date of the divorce or even after receipt of the SOR to resolve them. The Judge’s Analysis Applicant’s conduct is recent and cast doubts upon his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. He has taken no action to resolve any but two of the debts alleged in the SOR. The Judge concluded that Applicant’s problems were not beyond his control. Given his earnings and his net worth, he could have resolved a significant number of his debts. He has had no financial counseling, and there are no indications that his financial difficulties are under control. Applicant provided no documents to support a legitimate basis for disputing his debts.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s appeal submission includes matters from outside the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant argues that the Judge did not properly apply the mitigating conditions. He cites to circumstances that he believes were outside his control, such as his divorce, that had an impact on his finances. He argues that he has made good-faith efforts to pay his debts and that he has a reasonable basis to dispute the amount of some of his debts. However, Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has he 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). The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as paying taxes when due, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information. See, e.g., ISCR Case 14-06808 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 23, 2016). 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board