CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01588.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01588.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01588.a1

deniedJun 3, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a trustworthiness designation due to unresolved financial issues, specifically under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the resolution of a $749 judgment.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not adequately support her claims of resolving the debt. The board also clarified that the applicant's stated financial difficulties and job loss were not relevant factors in determining trustworthiness.

Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20 were raised, while mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 21 were applied. Ultimately, the applicant's security clearance was denied because she did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the resolution of the $749 judgment.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the resolution of a $749 judgment.
The appeal board found that the applicant's financial difficulties were not relevant to the trustworthiness determination.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's claims of partial resolution of financial issues were not substantiated.

Key Rule Quoted

“such a determination 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 issuedJun 21, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant represented herself.
Hearing heldMar 4, 2020Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateJun 3, 2020Appeal board decision affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Unresolved Financial Issues
Relevance of Financial Difficulties to Trustworthiness Determinations
Standards for Trustworthiness Determinations Consistent with National Security Interests

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, Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant alleges the Judge erred regarding her finding that “Applicant claims to have resolved the judgment alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b ($749). Although she provides copies of two money orders receipts showing $400 payments, the receipts do not establish the payee.” Decision at 4. The Judge’s findings are a fair description of the copies of the money order in the record. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01588.a1 DATE: 06/03/2020 DATE: June 3, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------- ) ADP Case No. 19-01588 ) ) Applicant for Public Trust Position ) )

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 June 21, 2019, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On March 4, 2020, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Nichole L. Noel denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. The Judge found against Applicant on 23 Guideline F allegations and in favor of her on all of the Guideline E allegations. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant alleges the Judge erred regarding her finding that “Applicant claims to have resolved the judgment alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b ($749). Although she provides copies of two money orders receipts showing $400 payments, the receipts do not establish the payee.” Decision at 4. The Judge’s findings are a fair description of the copies of the money order in the record. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no other allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, it describes the reasons for her financial problems and her efforts to resolve them. Her brief also contains a document and assertions that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant indicates that losing her job will have a negative impact on her financial situation. However, the impact of an unfavorable decision on an applicant is not a relevant consideration in determining his or her eligibility for a trustworthiness designation. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 17- 01760 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2018). The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. The standard applicable to trustworthiness cases is that is that set forth in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) regarding security clearances: such a determination “. . . may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” See, e.g., ADP Case No. 16-01251 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 7, 2017). See also Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied.

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