CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-01590.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-01590.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-01590.a1

deniedAug 13, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case concerns an applicant who sought a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was ultimately denied. The applicant, representing himself, faced significant financial issues that led to the denial.

Specifically, the applicant had approximately $28,000 in delinquent federal taxes and a car loan deficiency of about $7,900. These issues were identified as disqualifying conditions under Guideline F. The core reason for the denial was the applicant's failure to demonstrate that these financial problems were under control or actively being resolved at the time of the decision.

The judge found no errors in the initial decision, and the applicant's claims about hiring a tax consultant were deemed a harmless error that did not alter the outcome. Consequently, the appeal was denied, and the applicant's trustworthiness designation was not granted.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has approximately $28,000 in delinquent federal taxes and a $7,900 car loan deficiency.
The applicant's financial issues were not resolved or under control at the time of the decision.
The applicant's claims regarding hiring a tax consultant were deemed a harmless error and did not affect the outcome.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“such a determination 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 issuedMay 26, 2017
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMay 14, 2018
Decision dateAug 13, 2018

Cite For

Financial Stability as a Requirement for Trustworthiness Designations
Harmless Error Doctrine in Trustworthiness Cases
Limitations on New Evidence in Appeal Processes

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

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 notes one harmless factual error regarding a date. Applicant’s appeal brief does not assert any other error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a narrative statement about his efforts to resolve his financial problems and documents that constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-01590.a1 DATE: 08/13/2018 DATE: August 13, 2018 In Re: ------------------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No.17-01590

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 trustworthiness designation. On May 26, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness 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 May 14, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge’s Findings and Conclusions The SOR alleged that Applicant owes approximately $28,000 in delinquent Federal taxes. He also owes about $7,900 on a car loan deficiency. His financial troubles began when he became unemployed for about nine months in 2003 and withdrew money from a retirement account without planning for the tax consequences. When the IRS began garnishing his pay in 2009, he stopped making the car payments and the car was repossessed. In 2016, he hired a tax consultant to help develop an installment agreement to address the tax deficiency. An installment agreement was submitted, but there is no evidence whether the IRS granted the request or he has been making payments to resolve the tax deficiency. The car loan deficiency remains outstanding. Given the record evidence, it was too soon to conclude that Applicant’s financial problems are being resolved or are under control.

DISCUSSION

In his appeal brief, Applicant notes that he hired the tax consultant in 2012, instead of 2016. The Judge’s finding about the date of the hiring of the tax consultant was a harmless error because it likely did not affect the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-00678 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 13, 2014). Applicant’s appeal brief does not assert any other error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a narrative statement about his efforts to resolve his financial problems and documents that were not previously submitted to the Judge. Those documents constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.1.29. Applicant also provides a telephone number for the Appeal Board to contact the IRS to confirm the status of tax liens. The Appeal Board has no authority to interview witnesses, conduct investigations, or make findings of fact. See, e.g., ISCR Case No 16-03072 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2018). The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. The standard applicable to trustworthiness cases is that is that set forth in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) regarding security clearances: such a determination “. . . may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” See, e.g., ADP Case No. 16-01251 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 7, 2017). See also Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied.

ORDER

The Decision 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board