Loading case…

ISCR 17-04123.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2018) · CASE

ISCR Case 17-04123.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-04123.a1

Nov 19, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) due to the applicant's failure to provide sufficient proof of debt mitigation. The applicant, representing himself, did not submit adequate documentation to corroborate claims of debt resolution.

Despite receiving guidance on his rights and obligations, the applicant's lack of understanding regarding the necessary proof for debt mitigation was not attributed to insufficient guidance from DOHA. The appeal board affirmed the denial, finding no due process violations.

The board emphasized the applicant's responsibility to present evidence to support his claims. Ultimately, the security clearance was denied.

Procedural posture

SOR issuedDec 28, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 10, 2018
Decision dateNov 19, 2018

Cite for

Due Process Rights in Security Clearance Proceedings
Expectation of Applicants to Present Documentation for Debt Resolution
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Authority to Provide Case Presentation Advice

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 who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations and criminal conduct. The applicant argued a lack of understanding regarding the proof required for mitigation. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the process or guidance provided to the applicant.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPamela C. Benson denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued he did not understand what kind of proof was required to demonstrate mitigation of his debts.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan (Chair)
James E. Moody
Charles C. Hale

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; Guideline J DIGEST: The record shows, that Applicant received guidance in the File of Relevant Material (FORM) regarding his right to make a written response to the matters set forth therein. DOHA provided similar guidance in the cover letter that accompanied the FORM, and Applicant received a copy of the Directive, which also explained these rights. Moreover, the cover letter and the Directive notified Applicant of his right to assistance of counsel or of some other representative in preparing his response. If Applicant did not understand his rights and obligations in responding to the FORM, it was not due to any insufficiency in the guidance that he received. As it stands, we find no reason to conclude that Applicant was denied the due process afforded him by the Directive. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-04123.a1 DATE: 11/19/2018 DATE: November 19, 2018 In Re: -------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-04123

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 December 28, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On September 10, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Pamela C. Benson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1 Applicant begins his brief by stating that the Judge did not do anything wrong. He argues, however, that he himself did not understand what kind of proof was required to demonstrate mitigation of his debts. The record shows, however, that Applicant received guidance in the File of Relevant Material (FORM) regarding his right to make a written response to the matters set forth therein. DOHA provided similar guidance in the cover letter that accompanied the FORM, and Applicant received a copy of the Directive, which also explained these rights. Moreover, the cover letter and the Directive notified Applicant of his right to assistance of counsel or of some other representative in preparing his response.2 If Applicant did not understand his rights and obligations in responding to the FORM, it was not due to any insufficiency in the guidance that he received. As it stands, we find no reason to conclude that Applicant was denied the due process afforded him by the Directive. Applicant requests that we give him instruction on what kind of proof would be sufficient to mitigate the concerns raised in his SOR. It is well-settled that it is reasonable for Judge to expect applicants to present documentation about the resolution of their debts. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-00378 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov 2, 2018). However, we have no authority to provide an applicant with advice regarding the best way in which to present his or her case for mitigation. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-03387 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2018). For us to do so would be inconsistent with our obligation to remain impartial. As stated above, Applicant has not alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. We do not review cases de novo. Our authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party alleges harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-08300 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2018).

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. 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: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline J are not at issue in this appeal.

2 Applicant did in fact make a written response to the FORM, though the Judge concluded that he had not provided documentary evidence in corroboration of his claims of debt resolution. This conclusion is consistent with the record that was before the Judge. Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights under the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-02196 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Apr. 27, 2018).