CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-02371.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-02371.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02371.a1

Jun 8, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues and the late submission of required documents. The initial decision highlighted that the applicant submitted documents after the record's designated closure date. Although the judge was not obligated to consider these late submissions, they were reviewed, and the applicant did not successfully rebut the presumption that all evidence was considered.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, underscoring the critical importance of national security in all clearance determinations. The board found that the applicant failed to mitigate the disqualifying conditions under Guideline F, specifically F.1, which addresses financial irresponsibility.

Ultimately, the applicant's inability to timely provide necessary documentation and adequately resolve the financial concerns led to the denial of the security clearance.

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 issuedAug 7, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 27, 2015
Decision dateJun 8, 2016Appeal affirmed on this date.

Cite For

Affirmation of the Importance of Timely Evidence Submission Under Guideline F
Emphasis on National Security in Clearance Decisions
The Standard for Granting Clearance Related to National Security Interests

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 was filed by the applicant after the Department of Defense denied his security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge did not consider all evidence and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNichole L. Noel — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged that proper legal procedure was not carried out.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board concluded that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, affirming that the decision was sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Catherine M. Engstrom
William S. Fields

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: Applicant submitted documents after the date which the Judge had designated for closure of the record. The admitted them the documents into the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-02371.a1 DATE: 06/08/2016 DATE: June 8, 2016 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-02371

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 August 7, 2014, 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 hearing. On March 18, 2016, after the close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Nichole L. Noel denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge considered all the evidence in the case and whether the Judge’s adverse clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s decision. Applicant contends that “proper legal procedure was not carried out” because the Judge failed to consider documentary evidence that Applicant had submitted to the Judge and Department Counsel subsequent to the hearing. This argument does not demonstrate error on the part of the Judge. Applicant’s hearing was held on August 27, 2015. At the close of the hearing, the Judge left the record open until October 30, 2015, for the Applicant to submit any additional documentary evidence. Tr. at 81. On December 4, 2015, Applicant submitted three additional documentary exhibits—letters from Applicant’s accountant to his state tax board, also dated December 4, 2015. The Judge was not obligated to consider those letters because they were submitted more than a month after the close of the record. Nevertheless, the Judge admitted the letters into evidence and considered them jointly as Applicant’s Exhibit K. Decision at 2. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12- 05959 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2016). Applicant also asks that the decision in his case be “delayed” so that he can submit eight documents that he lists in his Appeal Brief. Seven of those documents are items that are already part of the case record.1 The eighth document is a letter dated May 2, 2016, subsequent to the Judge’s March 18, 2016 decision. The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data 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, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed; Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Catherine Engstrom Catherine M. Engstrom Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 The Statement of Reasons, Answer, Hearing Transcript, Decision, Notice of Appeal, Appeal Board letter, and Applicant’s Brief.