CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02934.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-02934.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02934.a1

Sep 9, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial delinquencies totaling approximately $44,000. The applicant appealed the decision, disputing the date of his job loss and arguing against the judge's findings.

However, the appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful errors in the judge's initial findings. The board specifically noted the applicant's inaction in addressing or resolving his substantial outstanding debts.

The judge's analysis had previously highlighted this lack of effort to mitigate the financial concerns. Consequently, the appeal was unsuccessful, and the security clearance was denied based on the applicant's failure to resolve the disqualifying financial conditions.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial 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 11, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 2, 2020Decision on the written record.
Decision dateSep 9, 2020

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that the Administrative Judge erred in the date of job loss. The Board found the error harmless and affirmed the denial of the clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — 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
Applicant contends that Judge erred in finding he lost a job in 2018 by pointing out that he lost it in 2015.

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 Judge's error regarding the job loss date was harmless and did not affect the outcome, as the Judge's decision was based on the Applicant's failure to address his financial delinquencies.

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: 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 ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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