CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-06841.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-06841.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-06841.a1

Aug 4, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to six delinquent debts totaling over $25,000. The applicant, representing herself, admitted to five of these debts but contested one as a duplicate. The judge accepted her claim regarding the duplicate debt, but found insufficient evidence to mitigate the remaining financial obligations.

The judge determined that the applicant's financial delinquencies raised significant security concerns, citing Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19. The applicant failed to provide adequate evidence to support her claims or to mitigate the admitted debts.

Ultimately, the appeal board affirmed the denial, underscoring the critical role of national security in all security clearance determinations.

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 issuedFeb 26, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMay 18, 2017
Decision dateAug 4, 2017

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Providing Evidence to Mitigate Financial Issues
Affirmation of the Standard for National Security Eligibility

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 was filed by the applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge erred in findings of fact and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert J. Kilmartin — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed the Judge's findings of fact were erroneous and the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's findings or decision, affirming that the Judge 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
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 identified any harmful error in the Judge’s findings of fact or in the decision. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-06841.a1 DATE: 08/04/2017 DATE: August 4, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-06841

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 February 26, 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 May 18, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin 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 erred in his findings of fact and whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The SOR alleged six delinquent debts totaling over $25,000. In her response to the SOR, Applicant admitted five of the debts and denied the remaining debt as being a duplicate. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the duplicate debt and against her on the other debts. He noted she produced no documents to substantiate her efforts to settle or dispute the debts. Applicant’s appeal brief includes matters, such as character reference letters and a marital separation agreement, that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. Those matters constitute new evidence that Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In the appeal brief, Applicant indicated that she wished “to address some issues that may have been misrepresented in the Findings of Fact” (Appeal Brief at 1) and proceeded to state that she did not knowingly leave out information on her security clearance application (SCA). We note that the Judge correctly stated in the findings of fact that Applicant did not disclose her delinquent debts in her SCA, but she did disclose that she encountered financial problems as a result of her divorce and second husband’s unemployment. Applicant also pointed out that her children and stepchildren were not grown adults at the time of her second marriage. However, the Judge did not make a finding of that nature. He merely found that she and her husband had six adult children at the time of the decision. Applicant has not identified any harmful error in the Judge’s findings of fact or in the decision. 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board