CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-03763.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-03763.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-03763.a1

unknownDec 14, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involved an applicant representing herself, facing security clearance concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 18 delinquent debts totaling over $37,000. The initial decision raised Disqualifying Condition F.3, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations.

However, the appeal board identified an error in the judge's assessment. The judge had determined there was an absence of supporting documentation regarding the applicant's financial situation, which the board found to be incorrect.

Consequently, the case was remanded for a new decision. The appeal board noted the applicability of Mitigating Conditions F.2 and F.3, suggesting that the applicant's financial difficulties were not recent or were due to circumstances beyond her control, and that she had initiated a good-faith effort to resolve the debts. The outcome of the new decision is not provided.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions were established, noting the absence of evidence of debt resolution.
F.3rejectedThe Individual Has Received or Is Receiving Financial Counseling for the Problem From a Legitimate and Credible SourceThe applicant argued she was unable to receive financial counseling, but this was considered new evidence not permissible for the appeal.

Key Rule Quoted

“Given those errors, we believe the best course of action is to remand the case to the Judge for correction of the errors and issuance of a new decision in accordance with the Directive.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 20, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 20, 2018Decision made by Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman.
Decision dateDec 14, 2018Appeal board remanded the case.

Cite For

Remand for Correction of Errors in Financial Documentation
Consideration of Disputed Debts Under Guideline F
Impact of New Evidence on Appeal Decisions

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’s response to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) does contain a document from a credit reporting agency that reflects a number of the alleged debts were “Currently Under Dispute.” We also note that Applicant’s response to the SOR includes a document that appears to reflect the student loans alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.dand 1.I were not in a delinquent status. Therefore, documents in Applicant’s SOR and FORM responses show the Judge erred in his findings about the absence of supporting documentation. Given those errors, we believe the best course of action is to remand the case to the Judge for correction of the errors and issuance of a new decision in accordance with the Directive. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 17-03763.a1 DATE: 12/14/2018 DATE: December 14, 2018 In Re: ----------------------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 17-03763

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 November 20, 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 September 20, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we remand. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis The SOR alleged that Applicant has 18 delinquent debts totaling over $37,000. She has been employed by a Federal contractor since 2016. In the past, she experienced periods of unemployment, including two periods after she left jobs by mutual agreement and a third period after she was fired for tardiness and absenteeism. She has never been married and has no children. She admitted all the debts, stated some were either paid, in payment plans, or in negotiations for settlements, but provided no documentary evidence of payments, payment plans, disputes, or other resolutions. She also provided no evidence regarding her income and expenses. She did provide documentation showing two non-alleged student loans were current. In his Analysis, the Judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions were established, noting the absence of evidence of debt resolution.

DISCUSSION

In her appeal brief, Applicant argues that she was unable to receive financial counseling under Mitigating Condition 20(c).1 She also states that she is in the process of establishing repayment plans for her debts. These statements constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also requests guidance on ways she could demonstrate her trustworthiness in financial matters. The Appeal Board cannot advise her about what action or actions she can or should take. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-01578 at 4 (App. Bd. May 27, 2004).

In her brief, Applicant further states that she provided court documents showing she was in the process of disputing some of her overdue bills. The record does not contain any court documents 1 Directive, Encl 2, App. A ¶ 20(c) states, “the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control[.]” establishing disputes.2 However, Applicant’s response to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) does contain a document from a credit reporting agency that reflects a number of the alleged debts were “Currently Under Dispute.” Applicant’s Exhibit (AX) A. We also note that Applicant’s response to the SOR includes a document dated January 25, 2018, that appears to reflect the student loans alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.dand 1.i were not in a delinquent status. Therefore, documents in Applicant’s SOR and FORM responses show the Judge erred in his findings about the absence of supporting documentation. Given those errors, we believe the best course of action is to remand the case to the Judge for correction of the errors and issuance of a new decision in accordance with the Directive.

ORDER

The Decision is REMANDED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 2 In her brief, Applicant also contends that she provided billing statement that show a decrease in her total debt. We cannot discern what billing statements Applicant is referencing.