CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01353.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-01353.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-01353.a1

Aug 11, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant who, representing himself, faced security clearance issues under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to six delinquent debts totaling approximately $46,000. The original decision denied the security clearance, citing the applicant's failure to provide evidence of actions taken to resolve these debts, which raised Disqualifying Condition F.1.

However, the Appeal Board did not uphold the denial. Instead, it remanded the case for further proceedings. This decision was made after the applicant presented new evidence of a serious illness that significantly affected his ability to respond to the Department Counsel's File of Relevant Material.

The Appeal Board determined that the applicant's illness raised due process concerns regarding his ability to adequately present his case. Therefore, the outcome is "None" as the case was sent back for re-evaluation rather than a final decision on the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board is generally prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 7, 2020
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMay 19, 2021Decision issued by Administrative Judge Stephanie C. Hess.
Decision dateAug 11, 2021Appeal Board remanded the case.

Cite For

Due Process Concerns Regarding New Evidence Affecting the Applicant's Response to the FORM
Remand for Reopening the Record to Allow Submission of Additional Evidence
Consideration of Serious Illness as a Factor in Due Process

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

Remanded

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that he was unable to respond to the Department Counsel's File of Relevant Material due to serious illness, supported by medical documentation. The Appeal Board remanded the case to allow the Applicant to submit additional evidence, citing due process concerns.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowStephanie C. Hess — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in making findings about the dates of his unemployment and the amount of debt.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that due process concerns were raised by the Applicant's new evidence regarding his serious illness, warranting a remand to allow for additional evidence submission.

Other

On remand, the judge must

The Judge shall reopen the record to provide Applicant an opportunity to submit additional evidence.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealProcedural compliance

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 asserts that he did not respond to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) because he became seriously ill. In support of that claim, he provided a document from a doctor confirming that he was diagnosed with that serious illness during the 30-day period that he was given to respond to the FORM. The Appeal Board is generally prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, we may consider new evidence insofar as it bears upon questions of due process or jurisdiction. Applicant’s new evidence raises due process concerns. Adverse Decision Remanded. CASE NO: 20-01353.a1 DATE: 08/11/2021 DATE: August 11, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 20-01353

) ) 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 7, 2020, 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 19, 2021, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Stephanie C. Hess 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 six delinquent debts totaling about $46,000. The Judge found against Applicant on each allegation and noted that, although he stated in his SOR response that he was working with an attorney to resolve the debts, he provided no evidence that he has taken any action to do so. In his appeal brief, Applicant asserts that he did not respond to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) because he became seriously ill. In support of that claim, he provided a document from a doctor confirming that he was diagnosed with that serious illness during the 30 day period that he was given to respond to the FORM. The Appeal Board is generally prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, we may consider new evidence insofar as it bears upon questions of due process or jurisdiction. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-01472 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 6, 2018). Applicant’s new evidence raises due process concerns. Based on the above, we conclude the best course of action is to remand the case to the Judge to reopen the record to provided Applicant an opportunity to submit additional evidence. As provided in Directive ¶ E3.1.35, the Judge shall, upon remand, issue a new decision in the case. The Board retains no continuing jurisdiction over a remanded decision. However, a decision issued after remand may be appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28. to E3.1.35. See Directive ¶ E3.1.35. As a matter of judicial economy, we note at this stage that Applicant is contending the Judge erred in making a finding about the dates of his unemployment and in finding he had $25,533 in debt that went into collection on or before March 2017. Applicant also raises other issues that are not ripe for consideration at this time.

ORDER

The Decision is REMANDED. 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