CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01882.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01882.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01882.a1

deniedOct 26, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. The applicant had 19 delinquent debts, primarily student loans, totaling approximately $106,900.

While the applicant admitted to these debts and claimed to have filed delinquent tax returns, he failed to provide any substantiating evidence to support his claims. This lack of verifiable information was a critical factor in the decision.

The judge found no harmful error in the initial denial, determining it to be consistent with national security interests. The Appeal Board subsequently affirmed this decision, upholding the denial of the applicant's trustworthiness designation.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had 19 delinquent debts totaling approximately $106,900, primarily from student loans.
He admitted to the allegations but failed to provide proof of filing delinquent tax returns.
The judge found no harmful error in the decision, which was consistent with national security interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“such a determination 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 issuedJul 19, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself (pro se) in the proceedings.
Hearing heldJul 14, 2020
Decision dateOct 26, 2020

Cite For

Denial of Trustworthiness Designation Due to Significant Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Support Claims of Financial Responsibility
Affirmation of a Judge's Decision When No Harmful Error Is Established

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

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: In his appeal brief, Applicant asserts that all of his tax returns are submitted and current. At the hearing, he testified that his Federal and state tax returns for 2015-2018 had not yet been filed.. In his post-hearing submission, he provided an email reflecting that he hired a tax service but submitted no proof that the delinquent tax returns were filed. Applicant’s appeal brief assertion about filing the delinquent tax returns constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01882.a1 DATE: 10/26/2020 DATE: October 26, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) -------------------------- ) ADP Case No. 19-01882 ) ) Applicant for Public Trust Position ) )

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 trustworthiness designation. On July 19, 2019, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness 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 14, 2020, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had 19 delinquent debts totaling about $106,900. Student loans constituted about 90% of his total alleged debt. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations. The Judge summarized the case as follows: Applicant became delinquent on numerous student loans and credit card accounts due to periods of unemployment, loss of other household income, and increased expenses. He is repaying his student loans through a rehabilitation program. Although he has received financial counseling, he has yet to begin repaying his past-due credit card accounts. Additionally, he has not yet filed his federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2015 and 2018. Applicant’s request for eligibility to occupy a position of trust is denied. [Decision at 1.] In his appeal brief, Applicant asserts that all of his tax returns are submitted and current. At the hearing, he testified that his Federal and state tax returns for 2015-2018 had not yet been filed. Tr. at 65. In his post-hearing submission, he provided an email reflecting that he hired a tax service but submitted no proof that the delinquent tax returns were filed. Applicant’s Exhibit G. Applicant’s appeal brief assertion about filing the delinquent tax returns constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also contends that the Judge misapplied various mitigating conditions. His arguments regarding the application of the mitigating conditions amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence and are not sufficient to show that the Judge’s conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. The standard applicable to trustworthiness cases is that set forth in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) regarding security clearances: such a determination “. . . may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” See, e.g., ADP Case No. 19-02087 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 12, 2020). See also Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael 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