CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-02251.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-02251.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02251.a1

Jun 24, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from two primary disqualifying conditions.

First, under Guideline F, the applicant had numerous delinquent debts, including student loans and medical expenses. The applicant failed to provide corroborating evidence regarding these debts. Second, under Guideline E, the applicant had been terminated from a previous job for violating ethics policies by making personal long-distance calls on a work phone.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant did not effectively challenge the judge's findings regarding her financial situation or her past personal conduct. The security clearance was ultimately DENIED.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
E2raisedViolation of a Law or Regulation

Key Rule Quoted

“There is no point in remanding the case under Guideline F because the Judge’s adverse conclusion under Guideline E is not challenged.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 28, 2014
Answer filed—Applicant represented herself (pro se) and requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldApr 13, 2015
Decision dateJun 24, 2015

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Unchallenged Adverse Conclusions Under Guideline E
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence and Due Process Claims

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 who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant argued that she was denied due process due to missing information in the record. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDavid M. White — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant contends that she was denied due process because a reply to the File of Relevant Material did not make it into the record.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not present any other assertion of harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not challenge the adverse conclusion under Guideline E and failed to present sufficient grounds for remand regarding her due process claim.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
James E. Moody

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; Guideline E DIGEST: There is no point in remanding the case under Guideline F because the Judge’s adverse conclusion under Guideline E is not challenged. CASENO: 14-02251.a1 DATE: 06/24/2015 DATE: June 24, 2015 In Re: ----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-02251

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 July 28, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On April 13, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge David M. White denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether she was denied due process. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The SOR alleges that Applicant has numerous delinquent debts for such things as student loans, medical expenses, etc. Applicant claimed that some of the debts were not hers and that several of them had been paid. The Judge found that Applicant had not corroborated her assertions. He also found that there is no record evidence that Applicant had received financial counseling. Neither is there evidence of a budget that would reflect Applicant’s ability to resolve her debts. In addition, the Judge found against Applicant regarding the sole allegation under Guideline E, that Applicant had been fired from a job with another Government contractor in 2011. This was due to her violation of an ethics policy. She made numerous personal long-distance phone calls on her work phone line. Applicant contends that she was denied due process. Specifically, she contends that she submitted a reply to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) that did not make it into the record. As a consequence, she argues that the Judge based his decision upon inadequate information. She requests that we remand the case to the Judge in order to “allow me to resubmit updated information relating to my financial situation.” Applicant’s appeal issue presents matters from outside the record. Although we are not able to consider new evidence on appeal, in the past we have done so concerning threshold issues such as due process and jurisdiction. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01239 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 23, 2014). However, Applicant casts her brief solely in terms of her desire to update her financial information. Even if she were to do so, that would not on its face undermine the Judge’s decision under Guideline E. Applicant admitted the allegation in her response to the SOR, and she has not challenged the Judge’s adverse conclusion on appeal. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Applicant’s brief has not supplied a sufficient reason for us to remand the case to the Judge. Applicant has presented no other assertion of harmful error. We do not exercise de novo review of appeal cases. Our authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has raised an issue on harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-14775 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Feb. 14, 2014).

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 E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board