CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-03438.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-03438.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03438.a1

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

Summary

A federal contractor employee, hired in January 2015, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from significant and unresolved delinquent debts, primarily for medical expenses, many of which were over four years old.

While the applicant made some efforts to address these debts, these actions were initiated only after receiving the Statement of Reasons (SOR). The judge determined that these efforts were insufficient and did not demonstrate responsible financial behavior.

Ultimately, the applicant failed to show responsible action regarding their financial issues, leading to the denial of the security clearance. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 were raised, and mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(c) were applied, but were not sufficient to overcome the concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentMost debts were over four years old and remained unresolved.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Individual Has Received Counseling or Treatment for the ProblemThe applicant hired a credit counseling service, but it was too early to conclude adherence to a good-faith effort.

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 issuedDec 22, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 26, 2017
Decision dateOct 5, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Responsible Financial Behavior for National Security Eligibility
Timing of Debt Resolution Efforts in Security Clearance Determinations

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 the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the applicant's arguments were essentially disagreements with the Judge's weighing of the evidence, which did not demonstrate harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — 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 articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, affirming that the applicant's financial issues were not sufficiently mitigated.

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’s argument is, in effect, a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing 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: 16-03438.a1 DATE: 10/5/2017 DATE: October 5, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-03438

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 December 22, 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 July 26, 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 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 been employed by a Federal contractor since January 2015. His SOR lists numerous delinquent debts, one of which is a lease that he co-signed with his son, though the predominance of them are medical expenses. Applicant hired a credit counseling service to assist him in resolving his debts, and the Judge found that four of those listed in the SOR had been addressed. However, for the balance, she found the opposite. She stated that Applicant’s efforts to resolve his debts did not begin until he had received the SOR, despite their having been in existence for several years. Applicant attributed his financial problems to several periods of unemployment, a lack of health insurance, and a divorce. He stated that, after his divorce, he moved four times and changed insurance companies. Sometimes medical bills were not transferred to the new carrier. When interviewed about his debts by a Government investigator, Applicant advised that he would pay all of his outstanding debts. In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant stated that he was in the process of determining the validity of charges and would have the information at the time of the hearing. As stated above, many of the SOR debts had been delinquent since 2013 and longer. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge stated that most of Applicant’s debts are over four years old and remain unresolved. She stated that she could not conclude that applicant’s financial problems were unlikely to recur. Though noting circumstances outside his control that affected his financial problems, the Judge found that he had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to them. She cited to evidence that applicant’s efforts to resolve his problems did not occur until after he had received the SOR. She noted the credit counseling firm that Applicant has hired but stated that it is too early to conclude that he is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay creditors. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to Applicant’s unemployment, lack of health insurance, and divorce. On the other hand, she also cited to Applicant’s continuous employment since January 2015 and to his relative tardiness in addressing his financial problems. She stated that there is little evidence to show that, once employed, Applicant undertook responsible action to address his delinquent debts.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends that he has successfully mitigated all of the allegations in the SOR. He cites to his exhibits, which, he believes, show that his financial problems are under control. The Judge discussed much of Applicant’s evidence, both in her findings and in her analysis. Applicant’s argument is, in effect, a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing 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. 15-08711 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 24, 2017). Given the Judge’s findings about the relative age of Applicant’s debts and his having undertaken to resolve them only after having received the SOR, we conclude that the Judge’s decision is sustainable. 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