CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-00147 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-00147denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-00147

Oct 11, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant who was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to two delinquent student loans totaling approximately $66,700. The applicant, representing himself, admitted to the outstanding debt but failed to provide additional information about the loans despite being given an opportunity to do so.

The applicant claimed he did not receive necessary defense materials, but the record indicated he was provided relevant documents and sufficient time to respond. The appeal board found no harmful error in the judge's decision regarding due process.

Ultimately, the appeal board affirmed the denial of the security clearance, emphasizing the paramount importance of national security in such determinations. The denial was based on the applicant's admitted delinquent student loans and his failure to provide further information as requested.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial 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 issuedFeb 8, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself (pro se) and requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJul 29, 2019Administrative Judge denied the request for a security clearance.
Decision dateOct 11, 2019Appeal board decision affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Due Process Considerations in Security Clearance Cases
Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of National Security in 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 claimed he did not receive the necessary documentation to respond, but the record showed he did receive it and had the opportunity to respond. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — 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 claimed he never received Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant received the FORM and had the opportunity to respond, thus no due process violation occurred. The Judge's decision was based on substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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 claims that he never received Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) The record, however, does not support his claim. On April 5, 2019, Department Counsel sent Applicant a copy of the FORM. The FORM advised Applicant that he had 30 days to submit a documentary response setting forth objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation, as appropriate and that, if he did not file any objections or submit any additional information before the deadline, his “case will be assigned to an Administrative Judge for a determination based solely on this FORM.” The record contains a receiptfor the FORM signed by Applicant on May 7, 2019. Since Applicant received the FORM and was provided a 30-day opportunity to respond to it, he has not established that he was denied any due process afforded by Directive. Adverse decision affirmed CASENO: 19-00147 DATE: 10/11/2019

DATE: October 11, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-00147 ) ) 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 February 8, 2019, 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 July 29, 2019, after considering the record, 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. The SOR alleged that Applicant had seven delinquent debts totaling about $85,800. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on five of the debts, which are not at issue on appeal. The Judge found against Applicant on two student loans totaling about $66,700 that have been placed for collection. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegations involving the two student loans and indicated he was currently working on a payment plan with the creditor, did not have information to send about their status, and would be able to send information at a later date. He submitted no further information on those loans. On appeal, Applicant raises a due process issue. He claims that he never received Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), which is apparently the reason why he did not submit further information. He argues that the Judge based her decision on outdated and inaccurate information. The record, however, does not support his claim. On April 5, 2019, Department Counsel sent Applicant a copy of the FORM. The FORM advised Applicant that he had 30 days from its receipt to submit a documentary response setting forth objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation, as appropriate. It further stated that, if he did not file any objections or submit any additional information before the deadline, his “case will be assigned to an Administrative Judge for a determination based solely on this FORM.” FORM at 3. [Emphasis added.] The record contains a receipt signed by Applicant showing he received the FORM on May 7, 2019. Since Applicant received the FORM and was provided a 30-day opportunity to respond to it, he has not established that he was denied any due process afforded by Directive. See Directive ¶ E3.1.7. Applicant also contends that he advised DOHA in a letter in February 2019 (presumably his March 10, 2019 SOR response) “that if any more information was needed to support my case, to please contact me and I will provide the evidence . . . .” Appeal Brief at 1. We are unable to find that statement in the record. Applicant’s appeal brief contains assertions and documents that were not provided to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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 E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board