CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01339.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01339.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01339.a1

Jan 24, 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 the decision consistent with national security interests.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to provide evidence mitigating the financial issues raised. Despite claiming an inability to respond to the File of Relevant Material due to military orders, he did not submit any evidence in response to either the File of Relevant Material or the Statement of Reasons.

Furthermore, the applicant's claims of due process violations were found to be unsubstantiated. Ultimately, the financial issues were not sufficiently mitigated by the evidence presented, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

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 31, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldOct 24, 2019DOHA Administrative Judge denied the request.
Decision dateJan 24, 2020Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Issues
Due Process Claims Must Be Substantiated to Affect the Outcome

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 filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant argued that he was denied due process and that the Judge's decision was arbitrary. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Robinson Gales — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended he was denied due process because he could not respond to the FORM on time due to military orders.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge weighed the evidence in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant was given an opportunity to respond to the FORM and did not provide evidence. The Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious.

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 contends that he was not able to respond to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) on time because he was on military orders. We note that the FORM was sent to Applicant on July 10, 2019, after which he requested an extension of time in which to respond. Decision at 2. DOHA granted this request, giving Applicant until September 16, 2019, to provide evidence. Nevertheless, Applicant submitted nothing in response to the FORM, even as he had submitted no documentary evidence along with his Answer to the SOR. We find no reason to believe that Applicant was denied an opportunity to present evidence in mitigation. To the extent that he is raising an issue that he was denied due process, we resolve it adversely to him. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01339.a1 DATE: January 24, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-01339

) ) 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 31, 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 24, 2019, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 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. Much of Applicant’s Appeal Brief consists of information from outside the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. We will consider new evidence, however, in order to resolve issues of jurisdiction or due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-01764 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Jun. 4, 2019). Applicant contends that he was not able to respond to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) on time because he was on military orders. We note that the FORM was sent to Applicant on July 10, 2019, after which he requested an extension of time in which to respond. Decision at 2. DOHA granted this request, giving Applicant until September 16, 2019, to provide evidence. Nevertheless, Applicant submitted nothing in response to the FORM, even as he had submitted no documentary evidence along with his Answer to the SOR. We find no reason to believe that Applicant was denied an opportunity to present evidence in mitigation. To the extent that he is raising an issue that he was denied due process, we resolve it adversely to him. Applicant states, “I do not feel I deserve to have my clearance revoked because of a hard time that I went through financially.” Appeal Brief at 1. Applicant discussed his financial problems, the reasons underlying them, and his efforts a debt resolution in his clearance interview. Item 3, Clearance Interview Summary. The Judge addressed this evidence, both in his findings and in his analysis. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, 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. 18-01482 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 6, 2019). 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 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