CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-00027.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-00027.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-00027.a1

Dec 4, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent debts. The applicant admitted to 15 out of 16 outstanding debts, totaling approximately $38,000. These financial issues raised Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20(a).

Despite claims of financial hardship, including brief periods of unemployment, the applicant failed to demonstrate responsible resolution of these debts. The judge's decision to deny the clearance was based on substantial evidence, highlighting the applicant's inability to manage his financial obligations.

The appeal board reviewed the case and affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the judge's original decision. The board concluded that the evidence supported the denial, as the applicant had not adequately addressed the financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial 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 issuedJan 31, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 20, 2019
Decision dateDec 4, 2019

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Responsible Debt Resolution
Limitations on Considering New Evidence During Appeal

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 Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant argued that the Judge erred in finding their combined income to be $175,000, while he stated it was $153,000. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the record.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in finding that he and his wife earn about $175,000 annually.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was based on substantial evidence and that the Applicant failed to establish any harmful error.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant contends that the Judge erred in finding that he and his wife earn about $175,000 annually. He indicated their combined annual income was $153,000. At the hearing, Department Counsel asked Applicant if he and his wife have an annual combined income of $175,000, and he responded in the affirmative. The Judge’s challenged finding is based on substantial evidence in the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 19-00027.a1 DATE: 12/04/2019

DATE: December 4, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) -------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-00027 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

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 January 31, 2019, 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 hearing. On September 20, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., 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 16 delinquent debts totaling about $39,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted 15 of them, totaling about $38,000. The Judge found against Applicant on 15 alleged debts and noted that, even though Applicant experienced two brief periods of unemployment, he did not demonstrate responsible resolution of his debts. Applicant’s appeal brief contains documents and assertions that were not previously presented to the Judge for consideration. More specifically, the majority of his brief is a statement about his current financial situation and the actions he intends to take in the future to resolve his delinquent debts. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant contends that the Judge erred in finding that he and his wife earn about $175,000 annually. He indicated their combined annual income was $153,000. At the hearing, Department Counsel asked Applicant if he and his wife have an annual combined income of $175,000, and he responded in the affirmative. Tr. at 88. The Judge’s challenged finding is based on substantial evidence in the record. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. See also ISCR Case No. 16-04094 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2018). Applicant also notes the Judge’s adverse decision has resulted in the loss of his job and is having a negative impact on him and his family. The Directive, however, 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 E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board