CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-02822.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-02822.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02822.a1

Jun 3, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial issues. These issues included tax problems, bankruptcy, and gambling.

The applicant did not challenge the judge's specific adverse findings regarding his financial situation, which were identified as Disqualifying Condition F1. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate that he was denied due process during the initial adjudication.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, noting that it could not consider any new evidence that was not part of the original record. The board's decision was based on the applicant's failure to contest the judge's findings and his inability to prove any due process violations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Our authority extends to cases in which the appealing party has raised a claim of harmful error.”
— Directive ¶E3.1.32

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 8, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 7, 2020
Decision dateJun 3, 2020

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Limitations on Considering New Evidence in Appeals
Authority of the Appeal Board Regarding Claims of Harmful Error

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 was denied due process due to a lack of correspondence, but the Board found no harmful error and affirmed the denial. The Applicant did not challenge the financial findings that were the basis for the denial.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted he was denied due process.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error regarding the denial of his security clearance. The assertion of due process violation was based on a document not considered in the original decision, and the Applicant did not challenge the financial findings that led to the denial.

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 submitted an e-mail from his company’s security specialist. The e-mail appears to contain some confusion. It asserts that because Applicant did not reply to DOHA correspondence from January 2019, he was denied a clearance in February 2020. He denies having received the correspondence. In fact the cited correspondence predates the SOR and hearing. It was not referred to in the SOR, nor in the Judge’s decision, both of which were about financial issues including, tax problems, bankruptcy and gambling. Applicant has not demonstrated that he was denied due process. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02822.a1 DATE: 06/03/2020 DATE: June 3, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ----------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-02822 ) ) 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 April 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 hearing. On February 7, 2020, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mark Harvey 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 asserts he was denied due process. Applicant also requests a pardon. Applicant’s assertion regarding due process relies on a document 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. Applicant submitted an e-mail from his company’s security specialist. The e-mail appears to contain some confusion. It asserts that because Applicant did not reply to DOHA correspondence from January 2019, he was denied a clearance in February 2020. He denies having received the correspondence. In fact the cited correspondence predates the SOR and hearing. It was not referred to in the SOR, nor in the Judge’s decision, both of which were about financial issues including, tax problems, bankruptcy and gambling. Applicant has not demonstrated that he was denied due process. Applicant does not challenge the Judge’s adverse findings and conclusion regarding his financial situation. He does ask for a pardon. The Appeal Board has no authority to issue the requested remedy. See, e.g. ISCR Case No. 05-00951 at 3 (App. Bd. May 19, 2006) and ISCR 00- 0051 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 23 2001). Our authority extends to cases in which the appealing party has raised a claim of harmful error. Directive ¶E3.1.32. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of error regarding the Judge’s finding and conclusions, 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