WPC/ &X8h |`J~*Ҙ&?Gʎ*V񞥧Ľ҆6 v Und E"~cW!{}Tfg(u֝'>I}HGX&9gC},%HV.Z8]I-><Ԛ|ߘΠ~ ͅoFA^Q`4UBՄ4m7o=,ry({Oȥr%G9M}_yU[ /pEY;-9"s?ҰͣPwĈĕC 0!U)QORēʀ*xCJ,6/L8ǁ@zL)Fpyu[om+WlmIxհ=tvmRED3_v(P"]7E9g E4* ݧ}nhXp5DkQ<"v%]Y,T>{&LW#U N % 0: ^  w% 4) = L mN ^e b E U> UN U 0$ 0DNRN BHP LaserJet P3011/P3015 PCL60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,yD5 Uq#Bion.dl3|xU TTRX3'LetterX3' Letterhead3'Letter3'LetternT \  `&Times New Roman(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular  w$USUS.,  XX    1    _Directive,Enclosure220(a): thebehaviorhappenedsolongago,wassoinfrequent,oroccurredundersuch  circumstancesthatitisunlikelytorecuranddoesnotcasedoubtontheindividualscurrentreliability,trustworthiness, t orgoodjudgment[.](Y(2w$ !USUS.,    XX    0  (#$  0   y w$USUS.,  XX    2    _Directive,Enclosure220(b): theconditionsthatresultedinthefinancialproblemwerelargelybeyondthe  personscontrol...andtheindividualactedresponsibilityunderthecircumstances[.] w$USUS.,  XX    3    _Directive,Enclosure220(c). w$USUS.,  XX    4    _Directive,Enclosure220(d). d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineF  DIGEST:Applicantfailedtodemonstrateanexusbetweenhisbreakupwithhisgirlfriendand  othercircumstancesbeyondhiscontrolandhisdebtproblems.EvidencethatApplicanthas t creditcarddebtthatisgrowingcontradictstheJudgesconclusionthathisfinancialproblemsare ` undercontrol.Favorabledecisionreversed. L  CASENO:1113999.a2 $ t DATE:06/23/2014  L    8dd8    ______________   `     h      p DATE:June23,2014  8  .؉7r(#(#.AV ) xdEgA   InRe:        W ApplicantforSecurityClearance / AV ) xdEgA W )   )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \  H pX p ISCRCaseNo.1113999 \"  H# .؉7r. \XXp  #    APPEALBOARDDECISION  $ APPEARANCES '  &O%XX FORGOVERNMENT  X ) JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel 0!*  FORAPPLICANT  "0,  Prose #X<X%&O# #-       X<XXX<TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On f&!0 March22,2013,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(SOR)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat R'"1 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)ofDepartmentof >(#2 DefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedahearing. *)z$3 OnAugust28,2013,afterthehearing,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA) *f%4 AdministrativeJudgeWilfordH.RossgrantedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance. +R&5 DepartmentCounselappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30.OnFebruary3,2014, +>'6  theAppealBoardremandedtheDecisiontotheJudgetoaddresscertainerrors.OnMarch10,2014, ,*(7    TRX3'LetterX3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT    theJudgeissuedhisremandDecision,againgrantingApplicantaclearance.DepartmentCounsel  againappealedpursuanttotheDirective.     DepartmentCounselraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesfavorable t decisionwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowing,wereversethe ` Judgesfavorablesecurityclearancedecision. L    TheJudgesFindingsofFact _#X<XXX<#_ $ t   ApplicantsSORlisted10delinquentdebts,totalingapproximately$79,593.Thesedebts  P  includedunpaidFederalincometaxes.HehasapaymentplanwiththeIRS,whichoriginally  <  coveredtaxyears2007,2008,and2009.Taxesforthefirstoftheseyearshavebeenpaid.Theplan (  hasbeenamended,however,toincludetaxesowedin2010and2011.Asofthecloseoftherecord,   ApplicantowedtheIRS$10,012.77.Heispaying$175amonthonthisplan.Applicantstax   problemsoriginatedinerrorshecommittedinpreparinghisowntaxes.Healsoadmittedthathe   madebudgetingerrorsthatcontributedtohistaxproblems.Henowutilizesataxpreparationservice   toensurethathistaxesarecorrectlyfiled.Applicanthaddelinquenttaxesowedtohisstatefortax t years2007,2008,and2009.Hehassatisfiedthesedebts. `   Applicantalsoowesdelinquentdebtsonsevencreditcards,inamountsrangingfrom$1,374 8 to$21,880.Applicanthasenteredintoanagreementwithadebtresolutioncompany,andthese $t creditcarddebtsarebeingresolved.Healsoowes$82foracellphone.Hehasattemptedtoresolve ` thisdebt,buthasnothadsuccess.Theaccountappearstobeclosed. L   Applicantsfinancialproblemsbeganwhenhehada badbreakupwithhisgirlfriend. $ Decisionat4.Shelostherjob,andhetookonalltheexpensesoftherelationship,includingher  mothersmedicalandsubsequentfuneralexpenses.Hehasalsoexperiencedunexpecteddental  expenses.Applicantattemptedtoresolvehisproblemshimself,buthewasnotsuccessful.Helives  frugallyandhasdemonstratedthathethefinancialabilitytopaybothhiscurrentindebtedness,as  wellastopayoffhisdelinquentdebts.Heacknowledgedthatinthepasthehasprovidedfinancial p assistancetofamilyandfriendstotheextentthatwasnotinhisbestinterest. \    TheJudgesAnalysis  4"    TheJudgeconcludedthatMitigatingConditions20(a) #  1      ׀and(b) #  2      ׀applytoApplicants  $\" circumstances.Regarding(b),hestatedthatApplicantsproblemsresultedforthemostpartfrom $H # circumstancesoutsidehiscontrolandthatheactedresponsiblyinaddressinghisdebts.Although %4!$ Applicanthasnotreceivedfinancialcounseling,theJudgeconcludedthat thereareclearindications  thattheproblemisbeingresolvedorisundercontrol[.] #  3      ׀HealsoconcludedthatApplicanthad   initiatedagoodfaithefforttorepayoverduecreditorsorotherwiseresolvedebts[.]T #  4      ׀    Discussion  `   DepartmentCounselcontendsthattheJudgesdecisionfailedtoestablishamitigatingnexus 8  betweeneventsinApplicantslifeandhisfinancialproblems.Healsomaintainsthatbecausethe $ t evidencedoesnotprovideaclearpictureastothecauseorcausesofApplicantsdelinquent  ` indebtedness,itisnotpossibletoconcludethatApplicantsfinancialproblems,oncesolved,willnot  L  reoccur,DepartmentCounselalsoarguesthatApplicantdidnotbegintoaddresshisoverduedebt  8  untilrecentlyandthisdoesnotconstituteevidencethatApplicantactedreasonablyandexercised $  goodjudgment.TheBoardfindstheseargumentspersuasive.     Thestandardinsecurityclearancedecisions isthataclearancemaybegrantedonlywhen   clearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofnationalsecurity.DepartmentoftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.   518,528(1988). Anydoubtconcerningpersonnelbeingconsideredforaccesstoclassified p informationwillberesolvedinfavorofthenationalsecurity.Directive,Enclosure22(b).In \ decidingwhethertheJudgesrulingsorconclusionsareerroneous,theBoardwillreviewtheJudges H decisiontodeterminewhether:itdoesnotexaminerecordevidence;itfailstoarticulatea 4 satisfactoryexplanationforitsconclusions,includingarationalconnectionbetweenthefactsfound  p andthechoicemade;itdoesnotconsiderrelevantfactors;itreflectsaclearerrorofjudgement;it  \ failstoconsideranimportantaspectofthecase;itoffersanexplanationforthedecisionthatruns H contrarytotherecordevidence;oritissoimplausiblethatitcannotbeascribedtoameredifference 4 ofopinion.SeeISCRCaseNo.0322861at23(App.Bd.Jun.2,2006).     DepartmentCounselassertsthatthedatesonwhichApplicantsfinancialobligationsbecame  delinquentareasignificantaspectofthecaseforpurposesofascertainingthesignificanceand  relationshipbetweenpurportedlymitigatingeventsandthedelinquentindebtedness.TheBoard  agrees.DepartmentCounselnotesthatApplicantsfederaltaxdelinquenciescoveredaperiod l between2007and2011,thecommencementofwhichwastwoyearsafterthebreakupwithhis X  girlfriend,aneventthattheJudgecitesasaprincipalcauseoftheindebtedness.DepartmentCounsel D! alsonotesthatApplicantsstatetaxdelinquenciescoveredaperiodfrom2007to2009andhis 0"  consumercreditaccountsfirstbecamedelinquentin2008andindividualaccountscontinuedto #l! becomedelinquentuntil2011.Giventhetimeframes,withasignificantgapbetweenthepurported $X" causeofthefinancialdifficultiesandtheonsetofthevariousdebt_arrearages_,thereisnoevidence $D # toexplainhowthebreakupwiththegirlfriendcausedtheproblems.Applicantstestimonymerely %0!$ citesthebreakupasacauseofhismonetaryproblemswithoutgoingintodetailastohowitcaused &"% thetrouble. '#& Ї  Additionally,theJudgecitestaxpreparationissuesasanothermitigatingsourceof  Applicantstrouble.TaxpreparationwasamatterwithinApplicantscontrol.Giventhis,the  JudgesdecisiondoesnotadequatelyexplainwhyApplicantstaxpreparationissueswereamatter  inmitigation.Similarly,thedecisiontoattendfuneralsoutofstatewasamatterwithinApplicants t control.Billsarisingfrommedicalissuesmayhavebeenmattersofnecessity,but,aswiththeother ` purportedlymitigatingeventscitedbytheJudge,thereisnoexplanationastohowtheycaused L  Applicantssizabledebt_arrearages_.ThereisinsufficientevidencetosupporttheJudgesapplication 8  ofMitigatingCondition20(b). $ t   RegardingtheotherGuidelineFmitigatingconditions,DepartmentCounselarguesthatthere  L  wasinsufficientevidencetosupporttheJudgesapplicationofthemitigatingconditionsinlightof  8  thecontraryevidenceinthesamerecord.DepartmentCounselsargumentshavemerit.Department $  CounselcorrectlypointsoutthatthereisnothingtosupporttheJudgesconclusionthatApplicants   indebtednessoccurredundercircumstancesunlikelytorecur,sincetheevidencedoesnotestablish   withanyspecificityhowApplicantsdelinquenciesarose.TheJudgesconclusionthatApplicants   effortsatdebtresolutionweremadeingoodfaithisundercutbyevidencethathedidnotinitiate   attemptsatrepayinghisdebtsuntilafterheappliedforasecurityclearanceanddidnothirehisdebt p resolutioncompanyuntilJanuary,2013.TheJudgesconclusionthatApplicantsdebtproblemis \ beingresolvedorisundercontroliscontradictedbythefactthathiscreditcarddebtcontinuesto H grow,andtheamountofpaymentsmadeonthedebttodatehavenotsubstantiallylessened 4 Applicantsdebtload.TheobjectiveevidenceofamountsowedandtheamountApplicantispaying  p permonthindicatethathewillbeengagedindebtreductionlongerthanthethreeyearshehas  \ projected. H   Oncedisqualifyingconditionsarefoundapplicable,Applicantbearstheburdenof   establishingmitigation.TheJudgesconclusionsconcerningmitigationruncontrarytotheweight   oftherecordevidenceandfailtoconsiderimportantaspectsofthecase.Viewedasawhole,the  recorddoesnotsupportaconclusionthatApplicanthasmitigatedtheGuidelineFconcerns  consistentwiththestandardsetforthinEgan.TheJudgesfavorablefindingsunderthisGuideline  arenotsustainable.󀀀 l Ѐ X  Ѐ T,'+ @( Order     TheDecisionis REVERSED .     `     h   Signed:MichaelY._Raanan_Ԁ P     `     h   MichaelY._Raanan_ <     `     h   AdministrativeJudge ( x    `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard  d @*   `     h      `     h   Signed:JeffreyD._Billett_Ԁ      `     h   JeffreyD._Billett_      `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Member,AppealBoard      `     h   @  DissentingOpinionofAdministrativeJudgeJamesE.Moody  L   Idisagreewithmycolleaguesresolutionofthiscase.TheJudgesfindings,viewedinlight $t oftherecordasawhole,aresufficienttopersuadeareasonablepersonthatApplicantssecurity ` significantconductisbeingresolved.Ibelievethattherecordsupportsawholepersonconclusion L thatApplicanthasdevelopedareasonableplanfordebtrepaymentandthathehasdemonstrateda 8 seriousintenttoeffectuatethatplan.See,e.g.,ISCRCaseNo.0908462at3(App.Bd.May31, $ 2011).WeneednotagreewithaJudgesdecisiontofinditsustainable.See,e.g.,ISCRCaseNo.  0715696at2(App.Bd.Feb.20,2009).      @*   `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody__ \     `     h   JamesE.Moody H!    `     h   AdministrativeJudge 4"     `     h   Member,AppealBoard   x    #p!    `     h      p      x     ` X<XXX<   `     h   _#X<XXX<'E#___