CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00695.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00695.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00695.a1

Jun 2, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor with a military background was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unresolved financial issues. These issues included delinquent debts and defaulted student loans.

The applicant's claims of financial hardship and attempts to resolve these debts were not substantiated with sufficient evidence. Specifically, the applicant failed to provide corroborating evidence regarding efforts to resolve the student loan debts.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated responsible action concerning his financial obligations, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

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 10, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 15, 2017
Decision dateJun 2, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Substantiating Claims of Financial Hardship
Standard for Granting Clearance Consistent with 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 was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

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 Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Board also noted that new evidence submitted by the applicant could not be considered on appeal.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. 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: Applicant’s appeal submission asserts matters from outside the record. It includes documents that post-date the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-00695.a1 DATE: 06/02/2017 DATE: June 2, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00695

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 10, 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 hearing. On March 15, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant has worked for his current employer, a Defense contractor, since 2006. He served on active duty in the military from 1980 until 1984 and in the reserves from 1985 until 2003. Applicant was unemployed from June 2006 until August 2006. He received a college degree in 2007. Applicant divorced his wife in 1999. During the course of the marriage, he accumulated several delinquent debts. His debts were discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1992. In 2005, he enrolled in on-line college classes, financing the costs through student loans. He fell behind on his debts. He also assumed responsibility for the care of his aged mother, who had dementia, and for the mother of his girlfriend, who had undergone knee surgery. Upon a lawyer’s advice, he stopped paying on his student loans. He petitioned for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in 2013, which relieved him of $28,000 in consumer debt. However, the discharge did not affect his student loans. For several months in 2016, the student loan creditor garnished Applicant’s wages, although the creditor did not pursue garnishment after receiving a financial statement from Applicant. Applicant is still in default on these loans. He has engaged in conversations with the creditor and has attempted to establish a payment plan, although the creditor has not agreed to accept such a course of action. Applicant has provided no documentary evidence showing attempts to resolve the student loans. He has not provided evidence of financial counseling. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge noted Applicant’s unemployment and his care for his mother and his girlfriend’s mother. However, because Applicant provided no corroborating evidence of his claims of debt resolution, the Judge concluded that he had not demonstrated responsible action. The Judge noted character references that Applicant had submitted but concluded that the record did not support a favorable decision.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s appeal submission asserts matters from outside the record. It includes documents that post-date the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant reiterates his evidence about his care and support of his mother and his girlfriend’s mother. He discusses the difficulties he has had coming to an agreement with the lender and argues that he has met his financial obligations. He argues that the 14 days that the Judge held the record open after the hearing was insufficient for him to complete debt consolidation and submit evidence of payments. Applicant’s appeal brief is not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither is it enough 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. 13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017). The Judge’s decision to leave the record open was discretionary. Applicant was on notice of the Government’s security concerns since receipt of the SOR. 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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