CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-02131.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-02131.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02131.a1

May 13, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal board upheld the denial, finding no harmful error by the judge and no violation of due process during the hearing.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to adequately address financial concerns, specifically disqualifying condition F1. The board noted the applicant's lack of awareness regarding deadlines for resolving his debts and found his claims of misunderstanding about these obligations unsubstantiated.

Ultimately, the appeal board concluded that the applicant did not demonstrate any procedural errors or a lack of due process that would warrant overturning the initial denial. The security clearance was therefore denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“We do not review case de novo. Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error.”
— ISCR Case No. 19-00307 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 23, 2020)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 4, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 6, 2020
Decision dateMay 13, 2020

Cite For

Due Process Rights Under Directive ¶ 4.3
Limitations on Appeal Review Regarding Harmful Error
Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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 argued a misunderstanding of his situation and claimed he was not given a deadline before the revocation. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the process.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip J. Katauskas — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed he was unaware and not given a deadline before his clearance was revoked.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error alleged by the Applicant and affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision based on the lack of due process violation and the absence of new evidence.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. 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 states the following: “I was unaware and was not given a deadline before my clearance was revoked.” To the extent that he is raising an issue of due process, we find no reason to conclude that Applicant was denied the due process afforded by the Directive. See, e.g., Directive ¶ 4.3 for a concise description of an applicant’s due process rights. Furthermore, the Applicant and the Judge had a lengthy discussion of how the process works after a hearing, including the possibility that the Judge might deny or revoke Applicant’s clearance. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02131.a1 DATE: 05/13/2020 DATE: May 13, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ----------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-02131

) ) 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 September 4, 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 hearing. On February 6, 2020, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip J. Katauskas denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s brief raises no issue of harmful error by the Judge. Rather, he discusses his professional background, his having held a clearance for many years, and his efforts at resolving the delinquent debts alleged in the SOR. He argues that this case is based upon a misunderstanding of his true situation. Applicant’s brief contains information from outside the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In addition, he states the following: “I was unaware and was not given a deadline before my clearance was revoked.” Appeal Brief at 1. To the extent that he is raising an issue of due process, we find no reason to conclude that Applicant was denied the due process afforded by the Directive. See, e.g., Directive ¶ 4.3 for a concise description of an applicant’s due process rights. Furthermore, the Applicant and the Judge had a lengthy discussion of how the process works after a hearing, including the possibility that the Judge might deny or revoke Applicant’s clearance. (Tr. pp. 61-67). We do not review case de novo. Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-00307 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 23, 2020). Applicant has made no such allegation. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is affirmed.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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