CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07062.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07062.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07062.a1

Nov 21, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to insufficient documentation regarding his financial circumstances. The judge found that the applicant failed to provide necessary corroborating evidence to mitigate the financial concerns raised, leading to the adverse decision being affirmed on appeal.

Specifically, the applicant provided no documentation or details concerning his Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. Furthermore, he failed to present evidence of his monthly income and expenses, family finances, or residual tax debt issues.

While Disqualifying Condition F.1 was raised, Mitigating Condition F.2 was applied. However, the lack of supporting evidence for these financial matters ultimately led to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

F.2rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel a favorable decision.

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 issuedJun 15, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateNov 21, 2017

Cite For

Insufficient Documentation of Financial Circumstances Under Guideline F
Burden of Proof Required for Security Clearance
Expectation for Applicants to Present Corroborating Documentation

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 brought by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge did not properly weigh the evidence regarding his financial situation. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the weighing of evidence or the decision-making process.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBraden M. Murphy — 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 contends that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge did not correctly weigh the evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board concluded that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision, affirming the adverse decision based on insufficient evidence to mitigate financial concerns.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealBurden of persuasion

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
William S. Fields

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: The Judge based his adverse decision in large part on the fact that Applicant had provided no documentation or details concerning his Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings, his monthly income and expenses, his family’s current finances, or his residual tax debt issues. The Board has previously noted that it is reasonable to expect applicants to present that type of corroborating documentation. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-07062.a1 DATE: 11/21/2017 DATE: November 21, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-07062

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 June 15, 2016, DOHA 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 July 18, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. Applicant contends that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge did not correctly weigh the evidence. Specifically, he argues that the Judge gave insufficient consideration to his evidence of bankruptcy, loss of income, and the timing of the selling of his residence, which resulted in him and his wife exhausting their savings, falling behind on bills, and using money from their 401K that in turn resulted in a large tax bill once they were fully employed again. Applicant’s Brief at 1. As part of his submission on appeal, he offers new evidence in the form of a narrative statement concerning his current financial circumstances, a residential sales contract, and copies of emails. The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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. 15-08130 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 3, 2017). In this case, the Judge specifically considered the matters that Applicant raises on appeal. Decision at 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7. While the Judge acknowledged Applicant’s and his wife’s unemployment were circumstances beyond their control, he based his adverse decision in large part on the fact that Applicant had provided no documentation or details concerning his Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings, his monthly income and expenses, his family’s current finances, or his residual tax debt issues. Id. at 7. The Board has previously noted that it is reasonable to expect applicants to present that type of corroborating documentation. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-07091 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 11, 2010). It is an applicant’s job to present evidence sufficient to mitigate the concerns raised in his or her case, and the applicant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion that he or she should be granted a clearance. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02806 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep.9, 2015). In light of the foregoing, the Judge’s finding that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Applicant’s financial issues were unlikely to recur and they do not cast doubt on his currently reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgement is sustainable. Decision at 7. Applicant also requests that the Board grant him a hearing. Appeal Brief at 2. Applicant had the opportunity to elect a hearing. Instead, he requested that his case be decided on the written record and filed a documentary response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). Nothing in the record below indicates that Applicant was effectively precluded from presenting evidence on his own behalf, and his failure to take better advantage of his rights under the Directive does not constitute a denial of those rights. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 01-20579 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 14, 2004). The Board’s authority is derived from the Directive, which does not authorize it to hold oral arguments. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-01321 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 17, 2010). The Board does not review a case de novo. The favorable evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision. “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). Therefore, the Judge’s unfavorable security clearance decision under is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board