CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00088.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00088.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00088.a1

Sep 11, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to six delinquent debts totaling approximately $69,000. A significant portion of this debt included a mortgage account that was past due by about $65,000. The applicant failed to provide evidence of debt satisfaction for any of these outstanding obligations.

The applicant's claims of financial hardship were not substantiated with supporting evidence during the initial review. Consequently, the disqualifying condition under AG ¶ 20(a) was raised, while the mitigating condition under AG ¶ 20(c) was applied.

Upon appeal, the board found no harmful errors in the judge's original decision to deny the clearance. The appeal was ultimately denied because the applicant did not demonstrate that the judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's claims of financial hardship were not substantiated with evidence.

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—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJun 19, 2017
Decision dateSep 11, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Hardship to Mitigate Disqualifying Conditions
Affirmation of Judge's Decision When No Harmful Errors Are Identified in the Appeal Process.

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 a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that the Judge did not adequately consider his circumstances. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was unfair and did not consider all relevant circumstances.

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 Judge's findings or conclusions. The arguments presented by the Applicant were insufficient to overturn the decision.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

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: The Judge made findings of fact about much of the record evidence that Applicant discusses in his appeal. His arguments 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-00088.a1 DATE: 09/11/2017 DATE: September 11, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00088

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, 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 19, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had six delinquent debts totaling about $69,000. These included a mortgage account past due approximately $65,000. Applicant attributed his financial problems to his failed efforts to maintain two homes during a period when his wife was caring for her ailing sister. He was also a first-time home buyer who was not experienced with adjustable rate mortgages and, when his adjusted, he was unable to meet his obligation. The home was foreclosed. He stated he was in the process of discussing damage-mitigation options with a VA representative. He claimed that he paid the other alleged debts, but provided no evidence of debt satisfaction. In contending that his case “was unfairly categorized as cookie-cutter” and the circumstances leading to his family’s financial hardship were disregarded, Applicant provides an explanation of those circumstances, which includes some information that was not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration, such as, the foreclosed home was sold by the bank for $90,000 in September 2016. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. We note the Judge made findings of fact about much of the record evidence that Applicant discusses in his appeal. His arguments 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board