CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01482.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01482.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01482.a1

May 27, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, faced a security clearance denial under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to multiple delinquent loans and accounts. The applicant appealed this decision.

During the appeal process, defects were identified in the record, specifically missing pages. These omissions prevented a complete and accurate review of the applicant's financial situation.

As a result, the case was remanded. The purpose of the remand is to correct the record by including the missing pages and to reassess the applicant's financial situation based on a complete set of documents. No final outcome on the security clearance has been reached.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 20, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateMay 27, 2020Decision remanded due to record defects.

Cite For

Remand Due to Defects in the Record
Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Consideration of Non-alleged Debts for 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

Remanded

The appeal was from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board remanded the case due to defects in the record, instructing the Judge to correct the record and issue a new decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEric H. Borgstrom — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantNot reached
The applicant argued that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found an apparent defect in the record due to missing pages and instructed the Judge to correct the record before issuing a new decision.

On remand, the judge must

The Judge is instructed to reopen the record and, working with the parties, fill in the gaps and perfect the record. After the record has been corrected, the Judge should issue a new decision in accordance with the Directive.

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: There is a threshold issue of an apparent defect in the record. The File of Relevant Material, at Item 3, contains Applicant’s answer to the SOR. At the bottom of the page in the center, the pages are numbered, as follows: 1,2,3,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,1,5,16. Pages 4 and 6 are missing. Additionally, page 5 says at the bottom, “Continued on Reverse Side.” Nothing is on the back and, as noted page 6 is missing. The decision is remanded. CASE NO: 19-01482.a1 DATE: 05/27/2020 DATE: May 27, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ----------------------. ) ISCR Case No. 19-01482

) ) 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 20, 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 March 3, 2020, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Eric H. Borgstrom denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we remand. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant’s SOR alleges six delinquent student loans, eight delinquent consumer accounts, and a medical bill that has been placed in collection. The student loans became delinquent in 2017 and the others between late 2012 and late 2018. In addition to those listed in the SOR, Applicant also has about 20 more student loans that have gone into collection and three vehicle loans. The Judge stated that he would consider the non-alleged debts on the issue of mitigation. Applicant attributed her financial problems to a $20,000 reduction in pay in 2015. She presented evidence that she had resolved some of her debts. She also submitted a student loan rehabilitation agreement, though she provided no documentary evidence that she had made payments under it. She provided no evidence of monthly income or expenses or whether she had received financial counseling. The Judge noted that many of Applicant’s SOR debts became delinquent prior to her reduction in pay. Although she had paid some of them by the close of the record, he noted that she did not begin to address her financial problems until after receipt of the SOR. Applicant failed to explain why she had not attempted to pay her debts prior to then.

DISCUSSION

There is a threshold issue of an apparent defect in the record. The File of Relevant Material, at Item 3, contains Applicant’s answer to the SOR. At the bottom of the page in the center, the pages are numbered, as follows: 1,2,3,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,1,5,16. Pages 4 and 6 are missing. Additionally, page 5 says at the bottom, “Continued on Reverse Side.” Nothing is on the back and, as noted page 6 is missing. The only reasonable solution is to remand the case. The Judge is instructed to reopen the record and, working with the parties, fill in the gaps and perfect the record. After the record has been corrected, the Judge should issue a new decision in accordance with the Directive. The issues raised by Applicant are not ripe for consideration in light of the disposition of the case.

ORDER

The Decision is REMANDED. 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