CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-08755.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-08755.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-08755.a1

Feb 27, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial concerns. The appeal board affirmed this denial, citing the applicant's failure to adequately respond to the government's File of Relevant Material (FORM) and provide necessary evidence regarding his financial situation.

Specifically, the applicant's one-sentence response to the FORM was deemed insufficient to address the disqualifying financial conditions raised. He also failed to provide adequate documentary evidence of financial counseling or a budget. The board rejected his claims of misunderstanding the process, noting he had received sufficient notice and opportunity to respond.

New evidence submitted by the applicant during the appeal could not be considered, as the board does not review cases de novo. Consequently, the denial of the security clearance was upheld.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“New hearings are only granted when there has been a showing that a party was prejudiced by a significant defect in the prior proceeding, such as a denial of a fundamental right.”
— ISCR Case No. 10-05756 at 2, n.1 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2012)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 19, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held—Applicant declined a hearing.
Decision dateFeb 27, 2018Appeal board decision affirmed the prior denial.

Cite For

Insufficient Response to FORM Under Guideline F
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal
Criteria for Granting New Hearings in Security Clearance Cases

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 denial of his security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that he did not understand the gravity of the review and requested a new hearing. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJennifer I. Goldstein — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed he did not comprehend the full gravity of the review and requested a new hearing.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the applicant received adequate notice and due process, and did not establish any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The decision was based on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence regarding his financial situation.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Charles C. Hale
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 received the due process afforded by the Directive and his failure to make a more detailed response to the FORM cannot fairly be attributed to inadequate notice of his right to do so. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-08755.a1 DATE: 02/27/2018 DATE: February 27, 2018 In Re: ------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-08755

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 May 19, 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 24, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant requested that his case be decided on the written record and then filed a short response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), only one sentence of which addressed his financial situation. The Judge based her adverse decision in the case in large measure on the fact that Applicant did not provide documentary evidence as to financial counseling or his budget; character and trustworthiness; or professional performance or track record with respect to handling sensitive information and observing security procedures. Decision at 3. On appeal, Applicant offers new evidence in the form of a narrative statement describing his financial situation along with documents providing account details of SOR debts and his credit score. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also asserts that he did not comprehend “the full gravity of this review” and what information he needed to provide, and requests that he be given a new hearing in person. “New hearings are only granted when there has been a showing that a party was prejudiced by a significant defect in the prior proceeding, such as a denial of a fundamental right.” ISCR Case No. 10-05756 at 2, n.1 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2012). Applicant has not demonstrated a justification for such a remedy. A review of the record indicates that Applicant submitted two documents in which he declined a hearing (one in June 2016 and another in September 2016). He received a copy of the FORM, accompanied by a DOHA cover letter, in October 2016. The cover letter in particular stated that Applicant could submit “any material you wish the Administrative Judge to consider[.]” Cover Letter, dated October 17, 2016. The FORM itself advised Applicant that his response could set forth “objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation as appropriate.” Accordingly, Applicant received the due process afforded by the Directive and his failure to make a more detailed response to the FORM cannot fairly be attributed to inadequate notice of his right to do so. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05094 at 2, n.1 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2016). The Board does not review a case de novo. Applicant has not established any harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board