CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02852.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-02852.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02852.a1

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

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a U.S. security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 17 delinquent debts totaling approximately $77,000. The applicant admitted to these debts, which were identified as a disqualifying condition under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 20.

Despite acknowledging the significant financial obligations, the applicant failed to provide any evidence demonstrating efforts to address or resolve these debts. This lack of action was a primary factor in the denial.

The decision underscored that national security is the paramount consideration in all security clearance determinations, and the applicant's unaddressed financial delinquencies presented an unacceptable risk. Consequently, the appeal was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial 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 issuedNov 19, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMay 26, 2020Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher.
Decision dateAug 26, 2020Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Importance of Demonstrating Efforts to Resolve Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Harmless Error Doctrine Regarding Factual Inaccuracies in the Record
National Security Standard in Clearance Determinations

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 Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant contended that the Judge erred in finding he had only one minor child instead of two. The Board found this error to be harmless and affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
The Judge erred in finding the Applicant only had one minor child.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the error regarding the number of children was harmless and did not affect the outcome of the case. The Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperNo 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 contends the Judge erred in finding he only had one minor child. His personal subject interview reflects that he has two minor children. This error, however, was harmless because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02852.a1 DATE: 08/26/2020

DATE: August 26, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) --------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-02852 ) ) 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 November 19, 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 26, 2020, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher 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 17 delinquent debts totaling about $77,000. In responding to the SOR, he admitted all of the allegations. Noting that Applicant failed to provide documentation showing any efforts to make voluntary payments on the alleged debts, the Judge found against Applicant on all of the SOR allegations. Applicant contends the Judge erred in finding he only had one minor child. His personal subject interview reflects that he has two minor children. File of Relevant Material, Item 3 at pages 4-5. This error, however, was harmless because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No 19-01220 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 1, 2020). Applicant’s appeal brief contains matters from outside the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Except for the error regarding the number of his children, Applicant has not alleged the Judge committed any other 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