CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-01764.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-01764.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01764.a1

Jun 4, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant consumer debts. The denial was based on five delinquent student loans totaling nearly $30,000.

The applicant did not challenge the judge's findings regarding these debts. The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the existence of these debts was sufficient to independently support the unfavorable security clearance decision. The board specifically noted that the applicant's failure to contest the judge's findings on these financial issues was a key factor in upholding the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Applicant does not challenge the Judge’s adverse findings and conclusion regarding the consumer debts, which are sufficient independently to support the unfavorable security clearance decision.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 3, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 28, 2019Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher.
Decision dateJun 4, 2019Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Unchallenged Consumer Debts
Importance of Challenging Adverse Findings in Security Clearance Cases
Insufficient Evidence to Support Claims of Due Process Violations in Appeals.

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 did not challenge the Judge's findings regarding consumer debts, leading the Board to affirm the denial. The Board found no harmful error in the appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not challenge the Judge's adverse findings regarding consumer debts.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as the Applicant did not challenge the adverse findings regarding consumer debts, which were sufficient to support the unfavorable security clearance decision.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealProcedural compliance

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 does not challenge the Judge’s adverse findings and conclusion regarding the consumer debts, which are sufficient independently to support the unfavorable security clearance decision. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of error regarding the consumer debts, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is affirmed. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-01764.a1 DATE: 06/04/2019 DATE: June 4, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ---------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-01764 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

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 3, 2018, 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 February 28, 2019, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. As best as we can discern, Applicant is claiming that he submitted a response to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) that did not make it into the record. In doing so, he makes assertions from outside the record, which we normally cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, we will consider new evidence insofar as it bears on the threshold issues of jurisdiction and due process. In his argument, he cites to a U.S. Postal Service tracking number that is insufficient on this record to substantiate his claim that he submitted documents in November 2018. He contends those documents showed he had a zero-dollar student loan balance. From the matters submitted, Applicant has failed to make a prima facie showing that he was denied due process. See, e.g. ISCR Case No. 15-02933 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 23, 2016). In the decision, the Judge noted that the SOR alleged five delinquent student loans. The Judge found for Applicant on two of the student loans as well as for him on two state tax liens and a child support debt. Regarding the Judge’s favorable student loans findings, Applicant had provided in his SOR response a document from the creditor reflecting that he had no delinquency balance on those accounts as of September 19, 2018. FORM Item 1. The Judge found against Applicant on the remaining three student loans and nine other debts, which included almost $30,000 in delinquent consumer debts. Applicant does not challenge the Judge’s adverse findings and conclusion regarding the consumer debts, which are sufficient independently to support the unfavorable security clearance decision. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of error regarding the consumer debts, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is affirmed.

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