CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01206.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01206.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01206.a1

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

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unmitigated financial issues. The applicant failed to file tax returns for 2014 and 2016, and also carried delinquent debts exceeding $3,200. These issues triggered disqualifying conditions F3 and F1.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns. Specifically, the board found that the applicant's explanations and submitted materials were inadequate to resolve the security risks associated with his failure to file taxes and his outstanding delinquent debts.

Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied, as the board determined that the financial concerns under Guideline F remained unresolved and presented an unacceptable security risk.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F3raisedFailure to File or Pay Taxes
F1raisedDelinquent 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 issuedMay 24, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJan 31, 2020
Decision dateMay 13, 2020

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns
Applicant's Burden to Provide Evidence in Mitigation

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 was regarding the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the judge did not have all the facts and failed to consider evidence in mitigation. The Board affirmed the judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGina L. Marine — 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 argued that the Judge did not have all the facts.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge considered all relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, with a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

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 argues that the Judge “did not have all the facts.” Appeal Brief at 1. However, it was Applicant’s task to provide evidence in mitigation. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. If Applicant believed that the record required more evidence, it fell to him to supply it. Applicant provides information about the circumstances of his financial problems and his efforts to address them. However, he has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision is affirmed CASE NO: 19-01206.a1 DATE: 05/13/2020 DATE: May 13, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) -------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-01206

) ) 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 24, 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 January 31, 2020, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gina L. Marine 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 failed to file his Federal income tax returns for 2014 and 2016 and that he had three delinquent debts that totaled a little over $3,200. The Judge found in Applicant’s favor regarding one of the delinquent debts but entered adverse findings for the remaining allegations. She commented that the debts in and of themselves were of limited security significance, given their relatively small total amount, and she noted Applicant’s claim that he had filed his returns by the close of the record. However, she stated that Applicant did not corroborate his claim to have filed his taxes, nor had he presented a sufficient explanation for his tax delinquencies. She concluded that Applicant’s tax problems and his lack of responsible action regarding his debts raised security concerns that he had not mitigated. Applicant’s brief includes matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. He argues that the Judge “did not have all the facts.” Appeal Brief at 1. However, it was Applicant’s task to provide evidence in mitigation. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. If he believed that the record required more evidence, it fell to him to supply it. Applicant provides information about the circumstances of his financial problems and his efforts to address them. However, he has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-02872 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2020). Applicant contends that without a clearance he will likely lose his job. The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-03024 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 9, 2020). Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge committed harmful error. The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). The Judge’s adverse 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 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