CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-12192.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-12192.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-12192.a1

Jul 13, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 25 delinquent debts totaling approximately $48,000, primarily student loans. The Administrative Judge identified disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20(a) related to the significant number and amount of outstanding debts.

While mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20(c) were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the security concerns. The applicant failed to provide adequate evidence of debt resolution during the proceedings. Furthermore, the applicant did not respond to the FORM, even after being granted additional time to do so.

Given the lack of demonstrated debt resolution and the failure to respond to official inquiries, the denial of the security clearance was affirmed on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's claims of debt resolution were not considered as new evidence.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board can neither receive nor consider new evidence.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 15, 2015
Answer filedJun 1, 2015
Hearing heldMay 4, 2016
Decision dateJul 13, 2016Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Delinquent Debts
Importance of Responding to the FORM in Security Clearance Cases
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal 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

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the judge made harmful errors, but the Board found no such errors and affirmed the denial. The applicant's new evidence was not considered as it was not permissible under the review standards.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge committed harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge provided the Applicant with the procedural rights required and that the decision was sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
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: A review of the record indicates Applicant was provided with the procedural rights set forth in Executive Order 10865 and the DOD Directive 5220.6. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 12-12192.a1 DATE: 07/13/2016 DATE: July 13, 2016 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-12192

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 May 15, 2015, 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 4, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran 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 25 delinquent debts totaling about $48,000. Seven of those debts were student loans totaling about $37,000. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on five of the student loans and against him on the remaining debts. In the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant claimed in his SOR response that debts were paid in 2012 and stated, “I would request more time to provide official settlement letter from creditor and to have my credit report updated to reflect status.” Decision at 3. Although it was unclear whether Applicant was provided additional time to respond to the SOR, the Judge pointed out that Applicant submitted his SOR response in June 2015 and received Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) in September 2015. Applicant was given 30 days from receipt of the FORM to review the file, submit objections, and provide additional information that he wished to be considered. He did not submit a response to the FORM. In his analysis, the Judge underscored that Applicant had more than three additional months after answering to the SOR to provide documents in response to the FORM, but did not do so. A review of the record indicates Applicant was provided with the procedural rights set forth in Executive Order 10865 and the Directive, including an opportunity to respond to the FORM. In his appeal brief, Applicant presented documents from creditors showing various debts were resolved. These documents constitute new evidence that the Board can neither receive nor consider. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant has not shown that the Judge committed any harmful error. The Judge’s decision is sustainable on the record.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board