CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-09067.a1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 10-09067.a1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date11/18/2011
Statusunknown
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Jeffrey D. Billett, Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons indicated that the applicant had significant financial issues, including eight delinquent debts totaling $19,288, and had been unemployed since 2006 after returning from a job overseas. The applicant claimed to have spent $93,000 in savings during this period, which the judge found problematic, as it suggested a lack of financial responsibility.
Key facts established during the proceedings included the applicant's long-term unemployment, his living situation in a homeless shelter, and his unsuccessful attempts to find work. The applicant admitted to having spent his savings but contested the judge's assertion that he had $93,000 in savings upon his return, arguing that this figure was inaccurate and did not account for various expenses incurred during his time overseas. The judge concluded that the applicant had not acted responsibly with his finances and that no mitigating factors applied, leading to the adverse decision.
The administrative judge's ruling was ultimately remanded by the Appeal Board due to the erroneous finding regarding the applicant's savings, which was deemed to have significantly influenced the decision. The Board noted that the judge's reliance on this incorrect fact raised doubts about the fairness of the evaluation and recommended that the case be reassigned to a different judge for a new hearing.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-09067.a1

unknownNov 18, 2011· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· hearing

Summary

This case involved a 51-year-old male applicant whose security clearance was challenged under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. Disqualifying Condition F.1 was raised due to unresolved debts totaling $19,288 and a history of unemployment since 2006.

The Board found that the Judge made erroneous findings regarding the applicant's financial situation. Specifically, the Judge's assertion that the applicant had $93,000 in savings was unsupported by the evidence presented. Additionally, the Board determined that the Judge exhibited bias during the hearing proceedings.

As a result of these findings, the Board remanded the case for further review. Mitigating Conditions F.2 and F.3 were applied, but no final outcome on the security clearance decision has been reached.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Led to the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe Judge found no mitigating conditions applied, citing a lack of rehabilitation or behavioral changes.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe Judge concluded that the applicant had not acted responsibly in addressing his debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge is impartial and unbiased, and a party seeking to overcome that presumption has a heavy burden of persuasion on appeal.”
— ISCR Case No. 07-02253 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar 28, 2008)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 30, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 31, 2011
Decision dateNov 18, 2011Remanded due to harmful errors.

Cite For

Remand Due to Erroneous Findings of Fact Regarding Financial Situation
Concerns About Judicial Bias Affecting the Fairness of the Hearing
Rebuttable Presumption of Judicial Impartiality in Security Clearance Cases

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.