CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00757.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00757.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00757.a1

Jul 24, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A military veteran and government contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to disclose two delinquent credit card debts, one of which exceeded $10,000, on his security clearance application.

The judge found the applicant's explanations for both his financial difficulties and the omissions on his application to be not credible. This lack of credibility raised significant concerns regarding the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness.

Ultimately, the applicant did not demonstrate that his financial problems were under control or that he had made a good-faith effort to resolve the outstanding debts. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

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 24, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 1, 2017
Decision dateJul 24, 2017

Cite For

Denial Based on Undisclosed Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Credibility of Applicant's Explanations Impacting Security Clearance
Importance of Full Disclosure in Security Clearance Applications

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 considerations and personal conduct issues. The applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider all evidence and misapplied mitigating conditions. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis or conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider all of the evidence.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's application of the mitigating conditions was erroneous.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed that the Judge's whole-person analysis was erroneous.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings and analysis were consistent with the record and that the Applicant did not rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all evidence. The Board concluded that the Judge's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Standard of review applied

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

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; Guideline E DIGEST: Despite Applicant’s arguments to the contrary, the Judge’s findings and analysis are consistent with the record that was before her. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-00757.a1 DATE: 07/24/2017 DATE: July 24, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00757

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Shane C. Brengle, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On June 24, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On May 1, 2017, after the hearing, 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. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge failed to consider all of the evidence; whether the Judge’s application of the mitigating conditions was erroneous; and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant served in the military, rising to the grade of E-5. He has worked for his present employer, a Government contractor, since early 2010. Applicant’s SOR lists two delinquent debts, both for credit cards. One of them, for a little over $10,000, saw its last activity in 2008. Applicant stated that he did not know why he failed to pay this account, although he noted that he had experienced health problems in 2015, which caused him to delay making payments. Although he did not contact the original creditor, he did receive communications from the collection agency that acquired the debt. He stated that he contacted the creditor after receiving phone calls and letters from him. Applicant entered into an agreement to pay $25 monthly from December 2016 until November 2017, although the creditor advised that this agreement would not be sufficient to resolve the account. Although he demonstrated that he made payments in January and February 2017, he did not account for his required payment the previous December or for a plan to make payments beyond November 2017. Applicant attributed his financial problems to a decrease in income and to his wife’s medical expenses as well as to his own. Applicant has earned about $105,000 annually for the past three years and he has received financial counseling. He states that he recently received a large tax refund that he is saving in the event he loses his job. When Applicant completed his security clearance application (SCA), he did not disclose his delinquent debts. He stated that he was not sure why he checked “no” on the SCA. He stated that he failed to disclose one of the credit card debts because he had started paying it, and, therefore, in his mind it was not delinquent. The Judge stated that she did not find Applicant’s testimony to be credible. A co-worker testified that Applicant’s duty performance is consistently above average. Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for honesty, trustworthiness, reliability, and loyalty. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge resolved one of the two credit card debts in Applicant’s favor. Regarding the other one, however, she concluded that it is recent in that it is ongoing and that he had failed to provide a reasonable explanation for his failure to pay. She stated that there is not enough evidence to show that Applicant’s problems are under control. That he has repeatedly been contacted by the creditor undermines the extent to which the payment plan described above constitutes a good-faith effort to resolve the debt. Regarding Guideline E, the Judge reiterated her conclusion that Applicant’s explanations for his omissions from the SCA were not credible, noting evidence that Applicant had been called and had received letters over the years. She stated that there is no evidence that Applicant attempted a good-faith correction of his omissions. She stated that they are serious and cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.

DISCUSSION

Despite Applicant’s arguments to the contrary, the Judge’s findings and analysis are consistent with the record that was before her. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence. 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). We have given due consideration to the Hearing Office case that Applicant has cited. However, each case must be decided upon its own merits. Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b). Moreover, Hearing Office decisions are binding neither on other Hearing Office Judges nor on the Board. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01416 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 15, 2017).

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