CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00090.a1 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date1/16/2018
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case 16-00090.a2) →See the hearing decision (Case 16-00090.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, William S. Fields, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · For Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 16-00090.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00090.a1

Jan 16, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant who, representing himself, appealed the denial of his security clearance. The denial was based on Guideline F, concerning financial considerations.

The core of the appeal centered on the applicant's assertion that he had timely submitted bankruptcy documentation, which was not present in the official record. The Appeal Board reviewed the case and determined that further action was necessary.

Consequently, the Appeal Board remanded the case. The purpose of the remand is to conduct an additional review to determine the admissibility of the evidence the applicant claims to have submitted. No final outcome on the security clearance has been reached at this stage.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 4, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 13, 2017Decision issued by Judge Eric H. Borgstrom
Decision dateJan 16, 2018Appeal decision remanded

Cite For

Remand for Further Review of Timely Submitted Evidence Under Guideline F
Consideration of Bankruptcy Documentation in Security Clearance Cases
Impact of Evidence Not Included in the Record on Clearance Decisions

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

Remanded

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant claimed to have submitted additional evidence that was not included in the record. The Board remanded the case for further determination on the submission of this evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEric H. Borgstrom — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant claimed he submitted evidence that did not make it into the record.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board remanded the case for the Judge to determine if the Applicant submitted timely evidence that was not included in the record.

On remand, the judge must

Determine whether Applicant timely submitted evidence that did not make it into the record and, if so, to take further action consistent with the Directive.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
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: In his appeal brief, Applicant claims that he emailed information to the Judge on September 11, 2017, including bankruptcy documents listing the delinquent debts, an updated credit report, a credit counseling certificate, a pay stub showing bankruptcy payment, and a Chapter 13 trustee document showing compliance with the repayment plan. The Appeal Board does not have fact-finding power. We conclude the best resolution is to remand the case to the Judge to determine whether Applicant timely submitted evidence that did not make it into the record and, if so, to take further action. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 16-00090.a1 DATE: 01/16/2018 DATE: January 16, 2018 In Re: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00090

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 4, 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 13, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Eric H. Borgstrom denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant claims that he submitted documentary evidence to the Judge that did not make it into the record. On September 7, 2017, the Judge sent Applicant a copy of the adjudicative guidelines that became effective on June 8, 2017, and reopened the record until September 25, 2017, to provide the parties an opportunity to submit additional evidence. On September 7, 2017, Applicant sent an email to the Judge stating, in part, that he filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy in January 2017 and that he was making payments on a 5-year repayment plan. The Judge responded by advising that he was not allowed to contact the bankruptcy court, and Applicant would need to provide any documentation about the bankruptcy. Applicant responded by stating, “Sounds Good. I will get that information over to you.” Applicant’s Exhibit A. The record contains no further communications from Applicant. In the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant did not provide documentary evidence about which debts were included in the bankruptcy or what payments have been made. In his appeal brief, Applicant claims that he emailed information to the Judge on September 11, 2017, including bankruptcy documents listing the delinquent debts, an updated credit report, a credit counseling certificate, a pay stub showing bankruptcy payment, and a Chapter 13 trustee document showing compliance with the repayment plan. The Appeal Board does not have fact- finding power. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02394 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 17, 2015). Given these circumstances, we conclude the best resolution is to remand the case to the Judge for him to determine whether Applicant timely submitted evidence that did not make it into the record and, if so, to take further action consistent with the Directive. Other issues raised by Applicant’s brief are not ripe for adjudication at this time.

ORDER

The Decision is REMANDED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board