CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-03363.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-03363.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-03363.a1

Oct 19, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. The denial stemmed from his failure to file a Federal income tax return for 2011 and having 18 delinquent debts totaling approximately $25,000. These conditions were identified as disqualifying under Guideline F1.

During the review process, the applicant claimed to have subsequently filed the outstanding tax return and reduced his delinquent debts. However, he did not provide any documentation to substantiate these claims. Without corroborating evidence, the Appeal Board affirmed the initial denial.

The decision highlighted the importance of providing verifiable documentation to address financial concerns raised during the security clearance process. Ultimately, the applicant's inability to substantiate his claims regarding the tax return and debt resolution led to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial 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 issuedNov 13, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 29, 2016
Decision dateOct 19, 2016

Cite For

Importance of Corroborative Evidence in Financial Cases
Expectation for Applicants to Present Documentation
Standard for Granting Security 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 concerned the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious, but the Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error and that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — 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 argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision, which was based on substantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the record. The Judge's findings were adequately supported, and the applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to corroborate his claims regarding debts.

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
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: The Appeal Board has previously noted that it is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present documentation to corroborate testimony. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-03363.a1 DATE: 10/19/2016 DATE: October 19, 2016 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-03363

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 November 13, 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 29, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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 the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s unfavorable clearance decision. The SOR alleged that Applicant failed to file his Federal income tax return for 2011 and had 18 delinquent debts totaling about $25,000. In his appeal, Applicant argues that he filed his 2011 Federal income tax return, that his Federal debt was paid, and that his student loans were current and in good standing. Other than the student loans, no Federal debt was alleged as delinquent in the SOR. In the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant filed his 2011 Federal income tax return in June 2014. Because the Judge found in favor of Applicant on the SOR allegations concerning his 2011 Federal income tax filing delinquency and on all of the alleged student loans, any errors regarding those allegations are harmless. In the appeal brief, Applicant asserts that a judgment against him for about $1,500 was paid down to about $450. The Judge found that Applicant testified he reduced the amount owed on that judgment through a payment plan, but he did not provide any documentation to corroborate his testimony. The Appeal Board has previously noted that it is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present documentation about the resolution of specific debts. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17520 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 20, 2007). After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge’s material findings about the judgment are based on substantial evidence, or constitute reasonable characterizations or inferences that could be drawn from the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014). Applicant also asserts that, since the Judge’s decision, he has moved in with a roommate, cut his expenses, and plans to make payments on all of his collection accounts starting the following month. Those assertions constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board can neither receive nor consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. Applicant has not identified any harmful error likely to change the outcome of the case. 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 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