CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-06916.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-06916.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-06916.a1

Feb 19, 2016· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to nine delinquent debts totaling $16,874. The appeal board affirmed this denial, citing the applicant's failure to take reasonable steps to protect his rights and his inability to provide credible mitigating evidence.

Specifically, the applicant demonstrated financial irresponsibility through the numerous outstanding debts. His justification for falsifying financial information was deemed not credible by the board. Furthermore, the applicant did not present any evidence of having a workable budget or having sought financial counseling to address his financial issues.

While Disqualifying Condition F1 was raised, Mitigating Conditions F3 and F4 were considered. However, the applicant's overall financial conduct, lack of credible explanations, and absence of remedial actions ultimately led to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F3rejectedThe Individual Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Financial ProblemThe record does not address whether the applicant obtained financial counseling.
F4rejectedThe Individual Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant did not provide evidence showing a workable budget or efforts to resolve debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights.”
— ISCR Case No. 07-15235 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 3, 2008)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 15, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself (pro se) and requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateFeb 19, 2016

Cite For

Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Procedural Due Process Expectations for Pro Se Applicants
Credibility of Applicant's Claims Regarding Financial Disclosures

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 due to financial concerns and claimed a violation of procedural due process. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the process followed. The applicant's assertions regarding procedural rights were rejected as he had been adequately informed of his options.

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

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed he was denied procedural due process.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant was provided with adequate information regarding his procedural rights and that he failed to take timely steps to protect those rights. The Judge's decision was based on substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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 DIGEST: Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights. Failure to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights does not constitute a denial of those rights. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-06916.a1 DATE: 02/19/2016 DATE: February 19, 2016 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-06916

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 April 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) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record. On November 15, 2015, after the close of 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 the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether Applicant was afforded the procedural due process he was entitled to under the Directive. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge made the following findings: Applicant had nine delinquent consumer debts and one judgment debt totaling $16,874. The record does not address whether Applicant obtained financial counseling. He offered no evidence showing a workable budget, from which his ability to resolve his admitted delinquencies and avoid additional debt problems could be predicted with any confidence. Applicant denied that he deliberately falsified his financial information by answering “No” in response to the questions about debt delinquencies on his 2014 security clearance application. He ascribed this falsification to his “oversight in checking the wrong block.” However, his submission of a document in 2014 to a creditor offering repayment options is not consistent with his assertion that he affirmatively denied the existence of his delinquent debts in 2014 through an innocent mistake. The Judge concluded: The record does not establish mitigation of Applicant’s financial irresponsibility under any of the Guideline F mitigating provisions. Applicant’s attempt to justify his false denial of his delinquent debts on his security clearance application is not credible. He has not mitigated the Government’s security concerns. Applicant does not assert error on the part of the Judge. He does state that he did not fully understand the consequences of not requesting a hearing. He states that he has now consulted legal counsel and believes that he can more fully and adequately present his case at a live and in-person hearing. The Board construes Applicant’s assertions as raising the question of whether he was denied certain procedural rights and information before making his choice to have his case decided on the written record. For the reasons that follow, Applicant has not established that his procedural due process rights were violated. Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights under the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07- 15235 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 3, 2008). If they fail to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights, that failure to act does not constitute a denial of their rights. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02- 19896 at 6 (App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2003). The record reveals that upon his receipt of the SOR, Applicant was provided a form wherein the choice between a hearing and a determination on the written record was clearly indicated. In addition, he was provided a copy of the Directive, which describes procedures both for hearings and for decisions on the written record. Ascertaining the merits for his situation of choosing one option over the other was the responsibility of Applicant. There is no evidence that Applicant was influenced in his choice by the Government or that he was hindered by the Government in any way from choosing freely between the available options. Thus, there is no evidence that Applicant’s procedural due process rights were violated. Given this, there is no basis to grant Applicant the relief he seeks, namely that the Judge’s decision be rescinded, and that he be allowed to present his case in an in-person hearing.

ORDER

The decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board