CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-00962.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-00962.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-00962.a1

Nov 20, 2018· Hon. Charles C. Hale· appeal

Summary

The applicant's security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and an outstanding federal tax lien. The appeal board upheld this denial, noting the applicant's failure to provide mitigating evidence.

Specifically, the applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2014, which was subsequently converted to Chapter 13 but later dismissed due to non-payment. Additionally, the applicant has an outstanding federal tax lien of approximately $11,000, and an Offer in Compromise submitted to resolve this debt was rejected.

The applicant, representing himself, did not submit any additional evidence or objections to the File of Relevant Material provided by the government. The denial was affirmed, with the board emphasizing the importance of national security in clearance determinations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's claims of impaired rights to submit mitigating evidence were found to be without merit.

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 issuedApr 27, 2017
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldSep 6, 2018
Decision dateNov 20, 2018Appeal board affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Importance of Providing Evidence in Financial Clearance Cases
Rejection of Claims Regarding Impaired Rights to Submit Mitigating Evidence
Emphasis on National Security in Clearance Determinations

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 Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Board affirmed the decision, concluding that the Applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's findings or conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed that supporting documents were not considered.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge did not commit any harmful error and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. The Applicant failed to provide additional evidence as required and did not establish a basis for relief on appeal.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

James E. Moody
Charles C. Hale
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: . If Applicant wanted the Judge to consider matters in his possession that were not contained in the FORM, it was his obligation to provide that information. To the extent that Applicant is claiming his right to submit matters in mitigation was somehow impaired, we conclude such a contention is without merit. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-00962.a1 DATE: 11/20/2018 DATE: November 20, 2018 In Re: ---------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-00962

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 27, 2017, 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 September 6, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2014. It was later converted to a Chapter 13 bankruptcy and eventually dismissed when he could not keep up with scheduled payments due to a medical issue. He has an outstanding Federal tax lien for about $11,000. His Offer in Compromise was rejected, and he was informed that he could appeal that decision, but provided nothing further in that regard. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on a state tax lien allegation, but against him on the bankruptcy and Federal tax lien allegations. Applicant’s brief contains matters that are not contained in the record, including an IRS Installment Agreement dated August 30, 2017. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive E3.1.29. Applicant argues that the Judge’s decision was defective because supporting documents were not considered. He asserts that an investigator informed him in January 2017 that additional documents would be obtained from the IRS and notes his “Offer in Compromise” was not considered.1 His argument is not persuasive. On August 1, 2017, Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) was forwarded to Applicant. He received the FORM on August 7, 2017, and was given 30 days from its receipt to file objections or submit additional matters. The FORM contained 12 exhibits that represented the Government’s evidence. The FORM advised him that, if he did not file objections or submit additional matters, his case would be assigned to a Judge “for a determination based solely on this File of Relevant Material.” [Emphasis added.] FORM at 4. Applicant did not submit a response to the FORM. If Applicant wanted the Judge to consider matters in his possession that were not contained in the FORM, it was his obligation to provide that information. To the extent that Applicant is claiming his right to submit matters in mitigation was somehow impaired, we conclude such a contention is without merit. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08- 07664 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2009). Applicant has not established any basis for granting him relief on appeal. Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error. 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 1 Applicant apparently means his IRS Installment Agreement when he refers to his Offer in Compromise. The first payment on his installment agreement was due in October 2017. personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board