CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-04743.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-04743.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-04743.a1

Oct 14, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 21 delinquent debts totaling approximately $66,000. The Appeal Board affirmed this denial, citing the applicant's failure to present any witnesses or documentary evidence during the hearing.

The Board found no evidence of a due process violation or harmful error in the original decision. The applicant did not successfully demonstrate that the initial denial was procedurally flawed or based on incorrect application of the guidelines.

Ultimately, the applicant's inability to provide mitigating evidence or challenge the procedural integrity of the initial determination led to the denial being upheld.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“"absent a showing that an applicant was denied a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the hearing or was denied a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on his or her behalf, an applicant is not entitled to receive a new hearing just so the applicant can have another chance to present his or her case."”
— ISCR Case No. 14-03347 at 3 (App. Bd. May 27, 2016)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 29, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 11, 2016
Decision dateOct 14, 2016

Cite For

Failure to Present Evidence Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Due Process Violation
Limitations on Remand Requests for New Evidence

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 who was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed, claiming he was unable to present evidence due to work circumstances but did not allege any specific harmful error. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no basis for remand or error in the original decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJennifer I. Goldstein — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error and failed to present evidence during the hearing. The request for a remand to present new evidence was not supported by a showing of due process violation or error.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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: A prima facie case has not been established that a due process violation or any error occurred. Applicant is asking for a remedy not available to him. The Appeal Board is only authorized to remand a case to correct an identified error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-04743.a1 DATE: 10/14/2016 DATE: October 14, 2016 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-04743

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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 October 29, 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 hearing. On July 22, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In his appeal, Applicant essentially requests that his case be remanded due to circumstances that did not allow him to present information in the time allotted. As best we can discern from his appeal, he was on a work assignment three time zones away from his home and was not permitted to contact people and companies (presumably creditors or character witnesses) while at work. He apparently is claiming those circumstances precluded him from being able to obtain documentary evidence. He does not allege the Judge committed any error. The SOR alleged 21 delinquent debts totaling about $66,000. At the hearing on May 11, 2016, Applicant testified, but did not present any witnesses or documentary evidence. The Judge left the record open until July 11, 2016 (approximately 60 days) for Applicant to present documentation. He did not present any documentation before the record closed. There is no indication in the appeal, decision, or record that Applicant requested an extension of time for submitting post-hearing documentation. A prima facie case has not been established that a due process violation or any error occurred. To the extent that a party fails to present evidence for consideration by the Judge, the party waives the opportunity to have such evidence considered. ISCR Case No. 00-0250 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 13, 2001). Applicant is asking for a remedy not available to him. The Appeal Board is only authorized to remand a case to correct an identified error. Directive ¶ E3.1.33.2. A request for a remand so Applicant can present new evidence does not constitute the correction of an identified error. “It is well settled that ‘absent a showing that an applicant was denied a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the hearing or was denied a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on his or her behalf, an applicant is not entitled to receive a new hearing just so the applicant can have another chance to present his or her case.’” ISCR Case No. 14-03347 at 3 (App. Bd. May 27, 2016). Compare ISCR Case 00-0250 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 13, 2001) (“If the Board were to grant Applicant’s request for a new hearing or allow her to submit new evidence in this case, then the Board would be giving her special treatment and denying other, similarly-situated applicants of their right to receive the fair, impartial, and even-handed application of Executive Order 10865 and the Directive.”) The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is affirmed.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. 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