CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-08130.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-08130.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-08130.a1

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

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $23,000 in delinquent debts. The appeal board affirmed this denial, citing the applicant's failure to demonstrate that these financial issues were being resolved.

Specifically, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of her current financial condition or seek financial counseling. While Disqualifying Condition F.3 was raised, Mitigating Conditions F.2 and F.3 were applied.

Ultimately, the clearance was denied because the applicant's substantial delinquent debts remained unresolved, and she did not take steps such as seeking financial counseling or providing updated financial status information to address these concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's arguments regarding circumstances beyond her control did not demonstrate that her financial issues were being resolved.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Financial ProblemThe applicant did not seek financial counseling.

Key Rule Quoted

“Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.15.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 14, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMay 31, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge.
Decision dateAug 3, 2017Appeal board affirmed the decision.

Cite For

Burden of Proof Shifts to Applicant After Government Raises Security Concerns
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Resolution Under Guideline F
Rejection of Mitigating Conditions Due to Lack of Financial Counseling

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 after being denied due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the adverse decision was arbitrary and that her debts were due to circumstances beyond her control. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

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

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

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 decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The applicant's failure to provide current financial information and seek financial counseling contributed to the decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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: Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation. Applicant had not sought financial counseling and “[n]o information was provided regarding the current status of the SOR debts or her current financial condition.” Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-08130.a1 DATE: 08/03/2017 DATE: August 3, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-08130

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 14, 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 the 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 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 argues that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because her debts were the result of circumstances beyond her control (e.g., medical problems and unemployment), and she has an excellent employment record and has held a clearance for 20 years without incident. In the alternative, she asks that the Board grant her a waiver or conditional clearance. The Board does not have authority to grant waivers, or interim, conditional or probationary clearances. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04289 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2015). Applicant’s argument does not demonstrate that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. 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. 15-01652 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 7, 2017). Applicant elected to have her case decided on the written record, and then did not respond to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). Based on the record that was before him, the Judge found Applicant had ten delinquent consumer and medical debts totaling approximately $23,000. In reaching his adverse decision he specifically considered the fact that Applicant had successfully worked for more than 20 years supporting the Department of Defense as an employee or contractor and had incurred medical debts while unemployed. However, he also noted she had not sought financial counseling and “[n]o information was provided regarding the current status of the SOR debts or her current financial condition.” Decision at 2. In light of the foregoing, the Judge’s conclusion that “Applicant has not shown that her financial problems are being resolved or are under control” is sustainable. Id. at 5. The Board does not review a case de novo. The favorable evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision under Guideline F is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. “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).

ORDER

The decision 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