CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01567.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01567.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01567.a1

May 6, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to a history of financial instability. The appeal board affirmed this denial, finding no harmful error in the initial decision.

Key disqualifying conditions included the applicant filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection four times, with all petitions subsequently dismissed. Additionally, the applicant had eight delinquent debts, with adverse findings specifically noted for three of these obligations.

While mitigating conditions were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the concerns raised by the applicant's financial history. The board concluded there was insufficient evidence to support the applicant's claims of procedural errors, ultimately upholding the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“Our authority to review a case is limited to those in which the appealing party alleges that the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 17, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateMay 6, 2020

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Support Claims of Procedural Errors
Limitations on Appeal Regarding Harmful Error Allegations

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 he had requested additional time to respond to the File of Relevant Material but failed to provide evidence to support this claim. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — 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 did not raise any specific harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims regarding a request for an extension and did not raise any harmful errors. Therefore, the Administrative Judge's decision was affirmed.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

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: Although we give due consideration to Applicant’s brief, in the past we have held it reasonable for applicants to corroborate their claims to have sent to the Judge evidence that did not make it into the record. Applicant has not provided a copy of any such request, nor has he submitted a mailing receipt, email transmission document, etc. Given the record that is before us, we conclude that Applicant has not made a prima facie showing that he submitted a request for an extension. Applicant has otherwise not raised an issue of harmful error by the Judge. Our authority to review a case is limited to those in which the appealing party alleges that the Judge committed harmful error. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01567.a1 DATE: 05/06/2020 DATE: May 6, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ---------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-01567 ) ) 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 July 17, 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 30, 2020, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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 had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection four times between April 2014 and January 2017. The petitions were dismissed each time. The SOR also alleged eight delinquent debts. The Judge found in Applicant’s favor regarding five of the debts and entered adverse findings for the remaining allegations. Applicant’s brief raises an issue of due process. In presenting his argument, Applicant makes assertions from outside the record. Normally, we are not permitted to consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, we will consider new evidence insofar as it pertains to threshold issues such as jurisdiction or due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-01764 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Jun. 4, 2019). Applicant contends that he requested additional time in which to respond to the File of Relevant Material (FORM). He states that he advised the Judge that he needed extra time in which to obtain documentary evidence because he was deployed overseas. There is nothing in the file to corroborate Applicant’s assertion. The record shows that he received the FORM on October 23, 2019. However, it contains no evidence of any response by Applicant. In his Reply Brief, Counsel states that he is aware of no such request for extension, and the Decision itself states simply that Applicant did not respond to the FORM. Although we give due consideration to Applicant’s brief, in the past we have held it reasonable for applicants to corroborate their claims to have sent to the Judge evidence that did not make it into the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-02109 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 6, 2019). Applicant has not provided a copy of any such request, nor has he submitted a mailing receipt, email transmission document, etc. Given the record that is before us, we conclude that Applicant has not made a prima facie showing that he submitted a request for an extension. Applicant has otherwise not raised an issue of harmful error by the Judge. Our authority to review a case is limited to those in which the appealing party alleges that the Judge committed harmful error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Accordingly, we find no reason to remand the case to the Judge or otherwise grant relief.

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