CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02208.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-02208.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02208.a1

Aug 3, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. The denial was based on the applicant's failure to file required federal and state income tax returns for 2017 and 2018.

Additionally, the applicant owed over $7,800 in delinquent taxes from 2014 and had 12 other delinquent debts. These issues were identified as disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline ¶ 19.

The appeal board affirmed the initial denial, finding no harmful errors in the judge's decision regarding the applicant's financial history. The board emphasized the importance of national security in its decision to uphold the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedDec 20, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMay 6, 2020
Decision dateAug 3, 2020

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of National Security in Clearance Determinations
Prohibition Against Considering Personal Impact of Unfavorable Decisions in Appeals

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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the denial negatively impacted her and her family, but the Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful errors in the Administrative Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted that the loss of her security clearance had a negative impact on her and her family.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Administrative Judge did not commit any harmful errors and that the decision was sustainable on the record. The applicant's arguments were deemed insufficient to show that the Judge's weighing of the evidence was arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

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 asserts that loss of her security clearance has had a negative impact on her and her family. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02208.a1 DATE: 08/03/2020

DATE: August 3, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) -------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-02208 ) ) 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 December 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 May 6, 2020, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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, her Federal and state income tax returns for 2017 and 2018, that she owed the Federal Government delinquent taxes of over $7,800 for 2014, and that she had 12 other delinquent debts. In responding to the SOR, she admitted each allegation, some with comments. Applicant’s appeal brief contains assertions that are not in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In her appeal brief, Applicant says, “It was stated in the decision documentation that I have made no effort in resolving my tax debt.” Appeal Brief at 1. She also asserts that she filed her delinquent tax returns. In the decision (at pages 2-3 and 6), the Judge discussed Applicant’s efforts to resolve her Federal and state tax delinquencies and found in favor of her on those allegations. In her brief, Applicant says: It is also stated that I made no effort to resolve my delinquent debt. I did provide proof of payment of my student loans and two other consumer debts that were paid in full. I still have several medical and consumer debts that have not been paid yet. I plan on paying them off one at a time as soon [as] I have a job. [Appeal Brief at 1.] In the decision (at page 3), the Judge discussed Applicant’s efforts to resolve three student loans and another debt and found in favor of her on those allegations. Applicant asserts that loss of her security clearance has had a negative impact on her and her family. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01759 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 8, 2020). Applicant also argues that she has taken action to resolve her financial issues, that she has been completely honest, and that she takes security matters very seriously and would never do anything illegal to raise money. These arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence and are not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Id. Applicant has failed to establish the Judge committed any harmful errors. 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