A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-02852.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 26, 2020 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance issues under Guideline F due to 17 delinquent debts totaling approximately $77,000. Despite admitting to the debts, he failed to demonstrate any efforts to address them, leading to the denial of his appeal. The decision emphasized the paramount importance of national security in clearance determinations.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to having 17 delinquent debts totaling approximately $77,000.
- He failed to provide evidence of efforts to address or pay off the debts.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2019-11-19
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2020-05-26 Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher.
- Decision date
- 2020-08-26 Appeal 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
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 stating he had only one minor child, while he actually has two. The Board found this error to be harmless and affirmed the denial of the clearance.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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 ) )
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