Loading case…

ISCR 19-00351.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2020) · CASE

ISCR Case 19-00351.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-00351.a1

Jan 9, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial concerns. The denial was based on the applicant's failure to file required federal and state tax returns for multiple years, as well as over $35,000 in delinquent debts.

The applicant did not provide documentation demonstrating that these debts were resolved or actively being addressed. The appeal board affirmed the initial denial, concluding that the judge's decision contained no harmful error and that the applicant's arguments did not adequately challenge the weight of the evidence presented against him.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, with the decision primarily resting on Disqualifying Conditions F.2 and F.3 related to financial irresponsibility and delinquent debt.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedDelinquent Debts

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 issuedApr 5, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 11, 2019
Decision dateJan 9, 2020

Cite for

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Filing Tax Returns for Security Clearance Eligibility
Limitations on Introducing New Evidence During Appeal Process

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 that the Judge's weighing of the evidence was arbitrary and capricious but failed to establish any harmful error. The Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Robinson Gales denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's weighing of the evidence was arbitrary and capricious.
No specific harmful error alleged, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged no specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge did not commit harmful error in weighing the evidence and that the decision was sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious 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: For the purpose of making a whole-person assessment, Applicant notes that he is in compliance with all but one of the adjudicative guidelines. Applicant’s arguments are not enough to establish that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Moreover, the Directive does not require that security concerns arising from admitted or proven SOR allegations under one or more of the guidelines be weighed or balanced against non-alleged guidelines in making a whole-person assessment. Such a comparison of alleged verses non-alleged guidelines is not a meaningful consideration in assessing security clearance eligibility. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00351.a1 DATE: 01/09/2020

DATE: January 9, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 19-00351 ) ) 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 5, 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 October 11, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR set forth 20 allegations of financial deficiencies, including failure to file tax returns as required. The Judge found against Applicant on ten of the allegations and in favor of him on the remaining allegations. The adverse findings involved Applicant’s failure to file his Federal income returns for 2010-2012 and 2015-2016 as required, his failure to file his state income tax returns for 2009-2012 and 2015-2016 as required; and eight delinquent debts totaling over $35,000. The delinquent Federal and state income tax returns were filed in April 2019, after issuance of the SOR. Regarding the unfavorable debt findings, the Judge noted that Applicant failed to submit documentation to show those debts were resolved or being resolved. Applicant’s appeal brief contains assertions and a document that are not contained in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive E3.1.29. Applicant states, “It is my understanding that I can present new evidence if the evidence was not available for the first judgement.” Appeal Brief at 1. This contention is incorrect. Information not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration constitutes “new evidence.” See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-00287 at 2, n.1 (App. Bd. Apr. 3, 2019). Applicant states he is not contesting the Judge’s findings of fact, but is challenging his weighing of the evidence. He notes that, with the exception of 2016, he was entitled to tax refunds for the other years. For the purpose of making a whole-person assessment, he also notes that he is in compliance with all but one of the adjudicative guidelines. Applicant’s arguments are not enough to establish that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-04856 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2017). Moreover, the Directive does not require that security concerns arising from admitted or proven SOR allegations under one or more of the guidelines be weighed or balanced against non-alleged guidelines in making a whole-person assessment. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-05647 at 2 (App. Bd. May 14, 2018). Such a comparison of alleged verses non-alleged guidelines is not a meaningful consideration in assessing security clearance eligibility.

Applicant has failed to establish 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