A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-02934.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 9, 2020 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The appeal was based on a dispute over the date of job loss and the applicant's failure to address significant financial delinquencies totaling approximately $44,000. The appeal board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant's lack of action to resolve his debts.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful errors in the judge's findings.
- The judge's analysis highlighted the applicant's inaction regarding financial delinquencies.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 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
- 2019-12-11
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2020-06-02 Decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2020-09-09
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Harmless Error Doctrine Regarding Job Loss Date
- Lack of Action to Resolve Financial Delinquencies as a Basis for Denial
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 argued that the Judge made an error regarding the date he lost his job. The Board found the 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: In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that Judge erred in finding he lost a job in 2018 by pointing out that he lost it in 2015. A review of the evidence confirms that Applicant lost his job in 2015, vice 2018. This error, however, was harmless because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. We note the Judge’s mitigation analysis focused on the failure of Applicant to establish that he has taken any steps to satisfy his financial delinquencies or seek professional assistance to develop a debt resolution plan. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02934.a1 DATE: 09/09/2020
DATE: September 9, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ----------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-02934 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 11, 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 June 2, 2020, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry 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 ten delinquent debts totaling about $44,000. He provided no evidence that he has either satisfied or arranged payment plans for the alleged debts. The Judge found against him on all the alleged debts. In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that Judge erred in finding he lost a job in 2018 by pointing out that he lost it in 2015. A review of the evidence confirms that Applicant lost his job in 2015, vice 2018. 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). In this regard, we note the Judge’s mitigation analysis focused on the failure of Applicant to establish that he has taken any steps to satisfy his financial delinquencies or seek professional assistance to develop a debt resolution plan.
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