CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01430.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01430.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01430.a1

Aug 10, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $24,000 in delinquent debt, which included a federal tax obligation. The judge determined that the applicant demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to pay her debts, citing Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19.

Despite the applicant's assertions of responsible actions and personal hardships, these circumstances were deemed insufficient to mitigate the financial concerns. The judge concluded that her financial irresponsibility and inability to manage debts were not adequately resolved.

Consequently, the applicant's appeal was denied, upholding the initial decision to deny her 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 issuedAug 15, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 1, 2017
Decision dateAug 10, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Irresponsibility
Impact of Personal Circumstances on Financial Obligations 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 financial issues under Guideline F. 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 analysis of the applicant's financial situation.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — 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 contends 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 Judge did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in weighing the evidence.

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: Acknowledging the extent of her financial problems, Applicant contends that she has exhibited responsible action in regard to them. Applicant is, in effect, arguing for an alternative interpretation of the evidence, which is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-01430.a1 DATE: 08/10/2017 DATE: August 10, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01430

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Stanley J. Mecinski, Jr., Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On August 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 hearing. On June 1, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry 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 Since 2010, Applicant has acquired about $24,000 in delinquent debt, which includes about $1,600 for a past-due Federal income tax obligation. Applicant was married in 1992 and divorced in 1998. Her ex-husband was an spendthrift, and Applicant filed for bankruptcy protection to address her debt load. She became engaged to another person, but they separated. Applicant moved to another residence and struggled financially. Her problems were compounded by her children who, addicted to drugs, stole from her. She has strained to make bail payments for her middle son who was frequently in and out of jail. Applicant has resolved about $1,000 of her debts but has about $22,500 remaining. After the hearing, she scheduled an appointment with a credit counselor. Once she provides the necessary information about income and expenses, the counselor will prepare a repayment plan. She earns about $42,000 a year and began a part-time job that pays an added $7,000. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s financial circumstances raised concerns under Guideline F, in particular that she had shown an inability or unwillingness to pay her debts and that she had a history of failing to meet financial obligations. In addressing Applicant’s case for mitigation, the Judge cited to evidence of Applicant’s divorce and subsequent bankruptcy filing. He also cited to the problems resulting from her breakup with her fiancé and to her children’s drug addictions and legal expenses. However, he concluded that these challenges were not enough to mitigate the concerns arising from Applicant’s substantial amount of delinquent debt. Concerning the Federal tax debt, the Judge stated that Applicant’s promise to address it with an expected upcoming tax refund is merely speculative. He stated that the Federal tax delinquency is of significant security concern, insofar as it impugns Applicant’s willingness to abide by governmental rules and regulations.

DISCUSSION

Acknowledging the extent of her financial problems, Applicant contends that she has exhibited responsible action in regard to them. She also argues that she has made a good-faith effort to pay her debts. She contends that she has been negligent rather than willful in her management of her financial affairs and believes that the various causes of her debts will not recur. Applicant is, in effect, arguing for an alternative interpretation of the evidence, which is not 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. 15-08842 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 14, 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