CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07696.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07696.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07696.a1

Sep 25, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to six delinquent debts totaling over $64,500. These debts raised disqualifying condition F.3, indicating a pattern of financial irresponsibility.

Despite being steadily employed since 2015, the applicant failed to provide evidence of resolving these debts or seeking financial counseling. The judge noted the applicant's admission to the six delinquent debts and the absence of any demonstrated effort toward resolution.

Ultimately, the judge found that the applicant's financial conduct raised doubts about his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy 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 22, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldJun 7, 2017Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateSep 25, 2017Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Failure to Demonstrate Effective Debt Resolution
Whole-person Analysis in Security Clearance Decisions

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 who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge erred in analyzing mitigating conditions and the whole-person analysis. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGregg A. Cervi — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge erred in his analysis of the mitigating conditions.
Whole-person analysis — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's whole-person analysis was erroneous, rendering the overall decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge considered all evidence and did not weigh it in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The decision was affirmed as it was consistent with national security interests.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-07696.a1 DATE: 09/25/2017 DATE: September 25, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-07696

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 22, 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 June 7, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi 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 analysis of the mitigating conditions and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous, rendering his overall decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant’s SOR lists six delinquent debts, which he admitted with an explanation. The debts include charged-off credit cards and a line-of-credit. They total over $64,500. Applicant has been employed by a Defense contractor since 2015. Applicant divorced in 2004, which he stated was a cause of his financial problems. He became financially overextended a few years later and had to take another job in a different state, though at a reduced salary. He had about nine months of unemployment. He sought help from a credit repair company. However, the company resolved few of Applicant’s debts. He stopped using the service but continued to have unpaid delinquent debts. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge cited to things such as Applicant’s divorce and unemployment that affected his financial situation. He noted, however, that Applicant discontinued the credit repair service before resolving his debts. Despite steady employment he has not presented evidence of debt resolution, nor has he shown that he sought financial counseling. The Judge stated that the evidence left him with doubts about Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to evidence such as his divorce, unemployment, and the debt consolidation company that he hired. He notes that at least some of his debts have been turned over to collection companies and contends that it takes a while to set aside the funds to pay them. He also discusses his circumstances in light of the whole-person factors, contending that he has shown mitigation of the concerns raised by his financial problems. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither 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). Moreover, we conclude that the Judge took into account all aspects of the record evidence which bore upon Applicant’s trustworthiness and reliability, which is what a whole-person analysis requires. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-00540 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan. 5, 2007).

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.”

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: Williams S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board