CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-00230.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-00230.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-00230.a1

Dec 13, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple financial delinquencies. The applicant admitted to failing to file federal and state income tax returns for both 2011 and 2012. Additionally, she was delinquent on seven debts, totaling approximately $9,700, though she contested only one of these debts.

The disqualifying conditions raised included F1 (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and F3 (failure to file tax returns). The applicant's appeal did not present any allegations of error by the judge in the initial decision.

Consequently, the appeal was denied because the applicant did not demonstrate any errors in the original decision, leading to the affirmation of the security clearance denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFailure to File or Pay Taxes
F3raisedDelinquent Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 12, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 20, 2019
Decision dateDec 13, 2019

Cite For

Failure to File Tax Returns as a Disqualifying Condition Under Guideline F
Delinquency on Debts as a Disqualifying Condition Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence and Error Allegations

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 her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not raise any specific harmful errors in her appeal and that new evidence could not be considered.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant raised no specific harmful error in her appeal.

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 new evidence presented was not considered.

Standard of review applied

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

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: In her appeal brief, Applicant noted that she could no longer afford the accountant that she had been using for years, that it took time to call the IRS and use its system to get the help she needed to file her back tax returns, and that she owed no back taxes after filing her delinquent returns. These assertions constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00230.a1 DATE: 12/13/2019

DATE: December 13, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) -------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-00230 ) ) 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 February 12, 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, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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 failed to file her Federal and state income tax returns for 2011 and 2012 as required and that she was delinquent on seven debts totaling about $9,700. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted all of the allegations with the exception of one debt less than $500. The Judge found against Applicant on all of the SOR allegations. In her appeal brief, Applicant noted that she could no longer afford the accountant that she had been using for years, that it took time to call the IRS and use its system to get the help she needed to file her back tax returns, and that she owed no back taxes after filing her delinquent returns. These assertions constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant further contends an error occurred because her circumstances had changed, and she felt that she did not have sufficient time to take action before the decision was issued. This claim fails for lack of specificity. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-01807 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2018). Applicant has neither identified the error she is referencing nor explained how any change in circumstances merits relief on appeal. Moreover, there is no reason to conclude the Judge abused her discretion in leaving the record open for 17 days after the hearing to provide Applicant the opportunity to submit post-hearing matters. Applicant’s brief also mentions that she encountered difficulties in handling a repayment request for student loans; however, those loans were not alleged in the SOR. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. 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.

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