CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07663.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07663.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07663.a1

Aug 17, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved debts. The applicant attributed her financial difficulties to medical problems and a lack of insurance.

However, the judge found insufficient evidence that the applicant had implemented a payment plan or otherwise resolved her outstanding debts. While the applicant raised Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19, the judge applied Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(c).

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied because numerous debts remained unresolved, and no evidence of an implemented debt payment plan or resolution was provided. New evidence submitted during the appeal could not be considered, as per the established rules.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's financial issues were ongoing and unresolved.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedThe Applicant Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Repay DebtsThere was no evidence of an implemented plan to repay debts.

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 issuedMay 5, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 31, 2017Decision on the written record.
Decision dateAug 17, 2017Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Unresolved Debts Under Guideline F
Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
Standard for Granting Security Clearance Related to National Security Interests

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 unresolved debts under Guideline F. The applicant argued that her financial issues were due to medical problems and submitted new evidence on appeal. The Board affirmed the denial, stating that new evidence could not be considered and that the applicant did not identify any harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not identify any harmful error in the Judge's decision.

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 any harmful error in the decision.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealNo de-novo re-decisionSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

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: Applicant’s appeal brief contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement, debt payment plan, and portions of credit reports. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-07663.a1 DATE: 08/17/2017 DATE: August 17, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-07663

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 May 5, 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 31, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge concluded that Applicant has numerous debts that are unresolved. Applicant attributed her financial problems to a chronic medical problem, medical expenses incurred by her son, and the absence of health insurance. After 2010, she acquired health insurance and had a more stable work history; however, she did not begin making payments on her medical debts until a judgment was entered against her in 2013. She stated that she is creating a plan to pay other delinquent debts, but there is no evidence the plan has been implemented or any of the remaining debts are being paid or resolved. Applicant’s appeal brief contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement, debt payment plan, and portions of credit reports. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In her appeal brief, Applicant submitted an explanation about her financial problems and the efforts she has taken to resolve them. Her arguments , however, are neither enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence nor sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01717 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2017). Applicant has not identified any harmful error in the Judge’s 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board