CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01237.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01237.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01237.a1

Dec 5, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to insufficient evidence of financial responsibility. The appeal board upheld this denial, citing the applicant's failure to provide corroborating evidence for her claims, both in her Statement of Reasons (SOR) response and on the required form.

Multiple unpaid debts were identified, including judgments and a repossessed vehicle. The applicant did not demonstrate that these financial issues were under control or that she had made good-faith efforts to resolve them.

Ultimately, the decision emphasized that granting a security clearance must align with national security interests, which the applicant's financial history and lack of supporting documentation did not satisfy. The denial was based on disqualifying conditions outlined in AG ¶ 19.

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 issuedJul 30, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant represented herself (pro se) and requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldOct 12, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran.
Decision dateDec 5, 2017Appeal board affirmed the adverse decision.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Failure to Provide Corroborating Evidence in Response to SOR
Upholding of Adverse Decisions Based on 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 involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that she was denied due process and 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 belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed she was denied due process.
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 provide corroborating evidence to mitigate the financial concerns raised in the SOR. The Board also determined that the Applicant was not denied due process and that the Judge's findings were not arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

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

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: As the Judge noted, Applicant did not submit corroborating evidence with her response to the SOR, nor did she submit a response to the FORM. Applicant states on appeal that she submitted evidence to the DoD CAF and has attached documents to the Appeal Brief. One of them is an email to the DoD CAF, which shows that she sent at least one document to them. However, this document predates the FORM and thus cannot be a response to the FORM. If it was the response to the SOR, that is already in the record. This submission does not refute the Judge’s finding that Applicant’s response to the SOR included no corroborating evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-01237.a1 DATE: 12/5/2017 DATE: December 5, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01237

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 July 30, 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 October 12, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran 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 she was denied due process and 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 and Analysis Applicant works for a Defense contractor. In 2010, she was charged with felony hit and run, which resulted in a plea of guilty to reckless driving. She paid a fine as well as restitution. Applicant was unemployed from mid-2012 until late 2013. Her SOR lists two unpaid judgments and several other delinquent debts, for such things as a repossessed vehicle, unpaid parking citations, and other miscellaneous obligations. Applicant claimed that she did not owe certain debts, had established payment plans, etc. She did not provide corroborating evidence in response to the SOR or to the File of Relevant Material (FORM). The Judge concluded that there is insufficient evidence that Applicant’s problems are under control, that she has made good-faith efforts to pay her debts, or that she otherwise acted responsibly.

DISCUSSION

As the Judge noted, Applicant did not submit corroborating evidence with her response to the SOR, nor did she submit a response to the FORM. Applicant states on appeal that she submitted evidence to the DoD CAF and has attached documents to the Appeal Brief. One of them is an email to the DoD CAF, which shows that she sent at least one document to them. However, this document predates the FORM and thus cannot be a response to the FORM. If it was the response to the SOR, that is already in the record. This submission does not refute the Judge’s finding that Applicant’s response to the SOR included no corroborating evidence. Applicant also attaches a number of documents dated well after the one just discussed. There is nothing in her brief or elsewhere in the record that would show that she sent these documents to the DoD CAF along with her SOR response or to DOHA in response to the FORM. Indeed, one of the documents is a credit report that was created two days after the issuance of the Judge’s decision. As it stands, Applicant has not made a prima facie showing that she actually submitted documents that were not included in the record. Applicant has not established that she was denied an opportunity to present documents in support of her case or that she was otherwise denied the due process afforded by the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05996 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 3, 2017). Applicant claims that she has mitigated the concerns in her case. However, her arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence, nor are they sufficient to undermine the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03069 at 3 (App. Bd. July 30, 2015). 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 of the Judge 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