CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-00795.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-00795.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-00795.a1

Apr 5, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. These issues included a Chapter 13 bankruptcy discharge and four delinquent debts totaling approximately $36,800. The initial denial cited Disqualifying Condition F.3, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations.

While Mitigating Condition F.2, which considers efforts to resolve debt, was applied, it was ultimately insufficient to overcome the security concerns. The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant failed to act responsibly in resolving his debts.

The board found no harmful error in the judge's decision-making process and determined that the applicant's arguments were insufficient to challenge the judge's weighing of the evidence. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control

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 issuedApr 13, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 8, 2019
Decision dateApr 5, 2019

Cite For

Evaluation of Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Standards for Weighing Evidence in Security Clearance Decisions
Impact of Bankruptcy on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge misapplied the whole-person concept, citing his military service and efforts to resolve financial issues. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowStephanie C. Hess — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends the Judge misapplied the whole-person concept.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge did not commit any harmful error and that the decision was sustainable on the record. The Judge's weighing of the evidence was not arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
Charles C. Hale

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: In his brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s rulings or findings of fact. Instead, he contends the Judge misapplied the whole-person concept. In doing so, he cites his military service and performance as a defense contractor. He also discusses his financial problems and his efforts to resolve them. He argues that his financial problems amount to an isolated incident and do not reflect him as a whole person. His arguments, in essence, are a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. As we stated in the past, the presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. The Judge, as the trier of fact, has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-00795.a1 DATE: 04/05/2019 DATE: April 5, 2019 In Re: ------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-00795

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 April 13, 2017, 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 February 8, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Stephanie C. Hess denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant received a Chapter 13 bankruptcy discharge in 2006 and had four delinquent debts totaling about $36,800. The Judge found for Applicant on the bankruptcy allegation and against him on the delinquent debts. The Judge concluded that, while Applicant’s financial problems were due to several events largely beyond his control, he failed to act responsibly in resolving his debts. Applicant’s appeal brief includes information not contained in the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In his brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s rulings or findings of fact. Instead, he contends the Judge misapplied the whole-person concept. In doing so, he cites his military service and performance as a defense contractor. He also discusses his financial problems and his efforts to resolve them. He argues that his financial problems amount to an isolated incident and do not reflect him as a whole person. His arguments, in essence, are a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. As we stated in the past, the presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. The Judge, as the trier of fact, has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00650 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 27, 2016).

Applicant has not established that the Judge committed any harmful error. 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 F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board