CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00844.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00844.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00844.a1

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

Summary

A 47-year-old government contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unresolved financial delinquencies totaling approximately $46,000. The applicant's financial history raised concerns regarding their responsibility and ability to manage debts.

Despite the applicant's claims of addressing some of these debts, insufficient evidence was provided to substantiate these resolutions. The appeal board affirmed the denial, specifically citing the lack of evidence supporting the applicant's claims and a long history of financial issues.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19, which addresses a history of not meeting financial obligations. The board concluded that the applicant had not mitigated the financial concerns, leading to the final decision to deny 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 issuedSep 16, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 5, 2017
Decision dateJul 25, 2017

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Unresolved Financial Delinquencies Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Support Claims of Debt Resolution
Concerns Regarding Financial Responsibility and Management in Security Clearance Cases

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 unresolved financial debts under Guideline F. The applicant claimed that the debts were resolved but did not provide evidence to support this. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis or conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJennifer I. Goldstein — 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 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 articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The applicant's arguments did not demonstrate that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

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
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 claims the two unresolved debts were “taken care of,” but does not point to any evidence in the record that supports that proposition. He also cites to various conditions that have contributed to his financial problems. Applicant’s arguments, however, are neither sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-00844.a1 DATE: 07/25/2017 DATE: July 25, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00844

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 September 16, 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 May 5, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein 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 decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant is a 47-year-old employee of a government contractor. The SOR alleged three delinquent debts totaling about $46,000. The delinquent debts are identified in credit reports admitted into evidence. Applicant resolved one of those debts, i.e., a mortgage account that was delinquent for about $800. The other two delinquent debts remain unresolved, which include a mortgage account in the approximate amount of $45,000. Applicant initially paid in full for the mortgaged property. He later obtained a loan on that property to pay bills. At some point his monthly mortgage payments increased from $575 to $2,500. He was unable to pay the higher amount and thought the property was foreclosed. He later learned the foreclosure was never perfected. He testified that he contacted the creditor and is now going though the loan modification process. The current status of the debt was not provided. Applicant attributed his financial problems to assisting his divorced parents with their medical conditions. He also assists financially his adult child and grandchild, and he has a medical condition that requires costly medication. He testified that he owns a total of eight properties; five are paid in full and he is making payments on the other three. He owed two other properties that were foreclosed. He owns six vehicles, including a 2013 luxury vehicle, 2014 sports car, and 2016 truck. His monthly incomes is about $10,900 and his monthly expenses are about $9,500. Applicant has a long history of financial delinquencies. Even though he encountered conditions beyond his control that contributed to his financial problems, he failed to establish that he acted responsibly with respect to his debts. There are no clear indications that his financial problems are being resolved or are under control.

DISCUSSION

In his appeal brief, Applicant claims the two unresolved debts were “taken care of,” but does not point to any evidence in the record that supports that proposition.1 Appeal Brief at 1. He also cites to various conditions that have contributed to his financial problems. Applicant’s arguments, however, are neither sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor 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. 14-03747 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 13, 2015). 1 At the hearing, Applicant presented part of an exhibit that was written in Spanish. The Judge advised Applicant that only the English sections of the exhibit would be admitted into evidence. Applicant was afforded the opportunity to provide a translation of the Spanish sections, but he did not provide anything further. See, Decision at 2, note 1.

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