CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-03247.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-03247.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-03247.a1

Sep 20, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to insufficient evidence to mitigate financial allegations. The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to provide documentation supporting her claims regarding her debts, which were raised as disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20.

The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, emphasizing the expectation for applicants to substantiate their claims with appropriate documentation. The Board noted that the applicant did not present new evidence or allege any errors in the judge's initial decision.

Ultimately, the applicant's inability to corroborate her financial claims with proper documentation led to the denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue”
— Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 20(e)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 2, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 10, 2018
Decision dateSep 20, 2018

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Allegations Under Guideline F
Expectation for Applicants to Provide Documentation Supporting Claims Regarding Debts
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence

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 after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not raise any specific allegations of error in the judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting the lack of corroborating documentation to support the applicant's claims regarding her financial situation.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant raised no specific harmful error regarding the judge's decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the evidence presented was insufficient to mitigate the financial concerns raised.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
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: Guidleline F DIGEST: The Appeal Board has previously noted that it is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present documentation corroborating their claims that debts have been satisfied, are being resolved, or have been disputed. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-03247.a1 DATE: 09/20/2018 DATE: September 20, 2018 In Re: ------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-03247

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 October 2, 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 July 10, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents that were not previously presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Her brief also contains a narrative statements about the efforts she has taken or is taking to resolve her financial problems. In the decision, the Judge stated: In the FORM [File of Relevant Material], [Applicant] was informed that the evidence she submitted in her Answer to the SOR was likely insufficient to mitigate the financial allegations. Despite that notice, she did not provide additional documentary evidence to confirm her assertions that she was resolving, had resolved, or had obtained recent and credible proof that the majority of the alleged debts were not her responsibility.1 The Appeal Board has previously noted that it is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present documentation corroborating their claims that debts have been satisfied, are being resolved, or have been disputed.2 See, e.g. ISCR Case No. 07-10310 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 30, 2008). Applicant’s appeal brief fails to establish that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. (See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01717 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2017). The Board does not review cases de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan 1 Decision at 7. 2 Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 20(e) states “the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue[.]” Emphasis added. 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