CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02166.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-02166.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02166.a1

Jun 24, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. The disqualifying conditions included a failure to file tax returns for multiple years and over $21,000 in delinquent debts.

While mitigating conditions related to financial considerations were applied, the applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that these issues had been resolved. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the Judge's decision was free of harmful error, as the applicant failed to adequately address the financial concerns raised.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied because the applicant could not sufficiently mitigate the financial concerns, specifically the unfiled tax returns and outstanding debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedFailure to File or Pay Taxes
F.2raisedDelinquent Debts

Mitigating

F.3rejectedInability to Pay DebtsThe applicant's arguments regarding his financial responsibility were not sufficient to mitigate the concerns.
F.2appliedDebt ResolvedThe applicant resolved two of the alleged debts but failed to address others.

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 issuedAug 30, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateJun 24, 2020

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Timely Filing Tax Returns for Security Clearance Eligibility
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Jurisdiction Regarding Background Investigations

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 raised issues regarding the background investigation and the Judge's findings. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Robinson Gales — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues that the Judge failed to adequately consider his willingness to correct his financial responsibilities.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserts that the Judge made errors in finding against him on certain allegations.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error that would affect the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance. The Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and were 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 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 raises issues regarding his background investigation. For example, he asserts that statements he made about his employment status were not noted in the interview summary. He also contends that, if a more thorough background investigation had been conducted, it would have showed his willingness to correct his financial responsibilities. The Appeal Board’s jurisdiction, however, is limited to the issues set forth in Directive ¶ E3.1.32. We have no authority over how background investigations are conducted. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02166.a1 DATE: 06/24/2020

DATE: June 24, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-02166 ) ) 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 30, 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 February 21, 2020, after considering the record, 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. The SOR alleged that Applicant failed to file, as required, his Federal income tax returns for 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2018; that he owed Federal taxes for 2014 through 2018 totaling about $15,000; and that he had six other delinquent debts totaling over $6,000. Noting that Applicant provided copies of the Federal tax returns for the years in question (two undated), the Judge concluded those tax returns were not filed in a timely manner. Applicant resolved two of the alleged debts (a bank account and automobile loan) totaling about $1,500 but failed to provided adequate documentation showing the other debts have been sufficiently addressed. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the two resolved debts and against him on the other allegations. Applicant’s appeal brief contains documents and assertions that are not included in the record. Some of the documents postdate the Judge’s decision. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant raises issues regarding his background investigation. For example, he asserts that statements he made about his employment status were not noted in the interview summary. He also contends that, if a more thorough background investigation had been conducted, it would have showed his willingness to correct his financial responsibilities. The Appeal Board’s jurisdiction, however, is limited to the issues set forth in Directive ¶ E3.1.32. We have no authority over how background investigations are conducted. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-06026 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 5, 2013). As provided in Directive ¶ E3.1.15, Applicant was responsible for presenting evidence to the Judge to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate security concerns that he admitted or that were proven by Department Counsel. Applicant notes that he initially requested a hearing, later opted to have the decision made on the written record, and now regrets making that change. This contention asserts no error on the part of DOHA or the Judge and is not an appealable issue. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. He also appears to challenge some of the Judge’s findings, such as those pertaining to his educational background, but fails to identify any error that could likely affect the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No 19-01220 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 1, 2020) (noting an error is harmless if it did not likely affect the outcome of the case). Applicant highlights conditions that resulted in his financial problems and argues he is trustworthy and is willing to correct those problems. These arguments amount to a disagreement with the way in which the Judge weighed the evidence and are neither enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-04856 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2017). Applicant requests the Appeal Board treat him as a “minority” under the guidelines. Appeal Brief at 3-4. To the extent he may be requesting that we grant him an exception under Directive, Encl. 2, App. C, he has failed to establish such an exception is merited. 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 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 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