CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01320.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01320.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01320.a1

Dec 13, 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 concerns. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined these issues, but the applicant failed to adequately address them.

Further complicating the matter, the applicant did not submit a response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) within the designated timeframe. Consequently, the appeal board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the original judge's decision. The board noted that the applicant was afforded due process throughout the proceedings.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 8, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held—Applicant elected to have the Judge issue a decision based upon the administrative record.
Decision dateDec 13, 2019Appeal board decision affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Due Process Rights in Security Clearance Proceedings
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Impact of Unfavorable Decisions Not Considered 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, representing himself, contended that he was unable to fully address the security concerns due to time constraints and lack of understanding of the process. The Board found no harmful error alleged and affirmed the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowElizabeth M. Matchinski — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error and was provided due process rights. The appeal did not raise any specific errors in the Judge's handling of the case.

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: The documents accompanying the SOR appropriately advised Applicant of his right either to request a hearing before an Administrative Judge or, if he wished, to have the Administrative Judge issue a decision based upon the administrative record without a hearing. As noted above, Applicant elected to have the Judge issue his decision based upon the administrative record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01320.a1 DATE: 12/13/2019

DATE: December 13, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) -------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-01320 ) ) 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 May 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 September 27, 2019, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains documents (most of which postdate the Decision) and assertions that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In his brief, Applicant contends that, due to time constraints, he was unable to fully address the alleged security concerns. He asserts that he “faithfully engaged in discovery” until time was exhausted for submitting matters and that he “was not clear on how to prepare my SOR, nor was [he] aware how important it was to be present at the hearing and, in fact, that is the crux of [his] appeal.” Appeal Brief at 1-2. Applicant did not make any of these assertions in responding to the SOR. The documents accompanying the SOR appropriately advised Applicant of his right either to request a hearing before an Administrative Judge or, if he wished, to have the Administrative Judge issue a decision based upon the administrative record without a hearing. As noted above, Applicant elected to have the Judge issue his decision based upon the administrative record. See Items 1 and 2 of Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). It also merits noting that Applicant was forwarded the FORM on June 24, 2019. He received it on July 1, 2019, and was given 30 days from its receipt to file objections or submit additional matters. He did not submit a response to the FORM. Applicant has failed either to allege or establish that the Judge abused her discretion in the processing of this case. From our review of the record, Applicant was provided the due process rights afforded him under the Directive. Applicant further notes the Judge’s adverse decision has had a negative impact on him. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015). Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. The Board does not review cases de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, 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