CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-04350.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-04350.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-04350.a1

Nov 29, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to four admitted delinquent debts totaling approximately $146,000. The applicant acknowledged the debts and stated he was making a good-faith effort toward repayment.

However, the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate the resolution of these debts. The Appeal Board, unable to consider new evidence presented during the appeal, affirmed the initial denial.

The decision was based on the applicant's admission of the significant outstanding debts and the lack of verifiable evidence of their resolution, aligning with Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20. The appeal was denied, upholding the original decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedFeb 15, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 25, 2018Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateNov 29, 2018

Cite For

Denial Based on Failure to Resolve Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Impact of Clearance Denial Not Considered in Appeals
Insufficient Documentation to Support Claims of Debt Resolution

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 Department of Defense denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant did not challenge the findings of fact and did not establish any harmful error. The Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip J. Katauskas — 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 did not allege any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Administrative Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's findings or conclusions.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealNo de-novo re-decisionHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
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 DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains documents and assertions that are not included in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. He also cites to the effect that a clearance denial will have on him and his company. The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-04350.a1 DATE: 11/29/2018 DATE: November 29, 2018 In Re: ----------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-04350

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 February 15, 2018, 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 25, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Philip J. Katauskas denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had four delinquent debts totaling about $146,000. He admitted those allegations. He stated that he was adhering to a good-faith effort to repay a charged- off debt of over $40,000, but provided no corroborating documentation. For a student loan in collection for over $10,000, he provided one document showing a first payment of $10. The Judge found against Applicant on those two debts because he failed to provide sufficient documentation showing they were being resolved and found in favor of him on the remaining two debts. Applicant’s appeal brief contains documents and assertions that are not included in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s findings of fact. His other arguments are not sufficient to show that the Judge’s rulings or conclusions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive E3.1.32.3. He also cites to the effect that a clearance denial will have on him and his company. The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015). 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 personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board