CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01765.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01765.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01765.a1

Oct 21, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of failing to file tax returns from 2011 to 2018. The applicant attributed these failures to forgetfulness and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.1. The applicant's appeal did not demonstrate any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Furthermore, the reasons provided by the applicant for not filing her taxes were deemed insufficient to mitigate the financial concerns raised by her prolonged non-compliance.

Consequently, the appeal was denied, and the adverse decision to deny the security clearance was affirmed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFailure to File or Pay Taxes

Key Rule Quoted

“We do not review cases de novo. Our jurisdiction extends only to those cases in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.32

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 12, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 8, 2020
Decision dateOct 21, 2020

Cite For

Failure to File Tax Returns Under Guideline F
Requirements for Raising Harmful Error on Appeal
Limitations on Considering the Impact of Adverse Decisions on Employment

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 denial of her security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Board found that the Applicant's appeal did not raise any harmful errors and thus affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief does not raise an issue of harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not raise any issue of harmful error in her appeal.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionHarmful-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: Applicant’s appeal brief does not raise an issue of harmful error by the Judge. Rather, she states that she will not allow this situation to arise in the future, that she has not had serious financial problems, and that she has held a security clearance throughout her military enlistment. Applicant notes that she has lost her job due to her not having a security clearance. On this last point, the Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01765.a1 DATE: 10/21/2020 DATE: October 21, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) -------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-01765

) ) 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 August 12, 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 hearing. On July 8, 2020, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s SOR alleged that she had failed to file her Federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2011 through 2018. She attributed this failure to forgetfulness and the effects of post- traumatic stress disorder. Applicant eventually filed all of her delinquent returns in 2019. The Judge entered adverse findings for both allegations. Applicant’s appeal brief does not raise an issue of harmful error by the Judge. Rather, she states that she will not allow this situation to arise in the future, that she has not had serious financial problems, and that she has held a security clearance throughout her military enlistment. Applicant notes that she has lost her job due to her not having a security clearance. On this last point, 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). We do not review cases de novo. Our jurisdiction extends only to those cases in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Insofar as Applicant has not raised an issue of harmful error, the Judge’s decision is affirmed.

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