CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-03712.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-03712.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-03712.a1

Jan 11, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues, including a past-due mortgage and other debts. The appeal board affirmed this denial.

Key reasons for the denial included the applicant's failure to provide evidence of mailing a response to the FORM, which is crucial for due process. Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to address his financial issues, a disqualifying condition under AG ¶ 20.

The board emphasized the importance of financial responsibility in security clearance evaluations and found no evidence of due process violations. The denial was upheld based on the applicant's inability to mitigate the financial concerns or prove compliance with procedural requirements.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial 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 issuedJan 11, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself (pro se) and requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldOct 25, 2017
Decision dateJan 11, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Importance of Providing Evidence in Response to the FORM
Due Process Considerations in Security Clearance Evaluations

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 argued that he was denied due process and that the Judge's decision was arbitrary. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended he was denied due process and that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of due process violations or that the Judge's decision was arbitrary or capricious. The Judge's findings were based on substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo 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: Applicant has not made a prima facie showing that he actually mailed anything to DOHA in response to the FORM or that he was otherwise denied the due process afforded by the Directive. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-03712.a1 DATE: 01/11/2018 DATE: January 11, 2018 In Re: ------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-03712

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 January 11, 2016, 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 decision on the written record. On October 25, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether he was denied due process and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant’s SOR alleges a $24,600 past-due mortgage loan that was in foreclosure and two other delinquent debts that together total $239. There is little evidence to establish the cause of Applicant’s financial problems other than his 2010 divorce. In his SOR response he claimed that he was not aware of the two smaller debts, although he stated that he had arranged to pay them. The Judge noted that, although Applicant was placed on notice by means of the File of Relevant Material (FORM) that he had not mitigated the concerns raised by his debts, he provided nothing in response. Accordingly, the Judge stated that he could not find that Applicant had acted responsibly in regard to his financial problems or made a good-faith effort to pay his debts.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends that he mailed his response to the FORM in June 2017. He states that DOHA received his receipt acknowledgment but not his response, as a result of which the Judge issued his Decision without having considered all of the evidence. Applicant’s brief contains new evidence, which we generally cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, we will consider new evidence insofar as it pertains to threshold issues such as jurisdiction or due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015). In resolving cases in which applicants claim to have submitted documents that were not received, we generally examine the record and the briefs to see whether there is any support for this claim. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08068 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 8, 2017). In the case before us, as Department Counsel observes in his Reply Brief, Applicant has provided no Postal Service receipt, copy of an email, or other evidence to buttress the contentions in his Appeal Brief. Reply Brief at 5. Neither does he identify nor describe any evidence that he contends that he submitted. Under the facts of this case, Applicant has not made a prima facie showing that he actually mailed anything to DOHA in response to the FORM or that he was otherwise denied the due process afforded by the Directive. See, e.g, ISCR Case No. 14-00967 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 20, 2015). Although pro se applicants are not held to the standards of lawyers, they are expected to take reasonable steps to preserve their rights. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08255 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 22, 2017). We resolve this allegation adversely to Applicant. The balance of Applicant’s brief is a challenge to the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. Applicant has not shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Neither has he rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-03219 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 15, 2017). The Judge examined the relevant evidence 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, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility 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