Loading case…

ISCR 08-05259.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal (2009) · CASE

ISCR Case 08-05259.a1unknown

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-05259.a1

May 19, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant representing herself, facing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved debts. The appeal board identified ambiguities in the judge's assessment of the applicant's financial situation, specifically regarding her monthly financial remainder.

The judge's evaluation of the applicant's ability to manage her finances was deemed unclear, particularly concerning the amount of money she had left each month after expenses. This lack of clarity prevented a definitive determination of whether her financial situation posed an unacceptable security risk.

Consequently, the case was remanded for further evidence submission to clarify the applicant's financial standing. No final outcome regarding the applicant's security clearance has been reached at this stage.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural posture

SOR issuedOct 14, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 17, 2009Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateMay 19, 2009Appeal board remanded for further processing.

Cite for

Ambiguities in Financial Evaluations Under Guideline F
Remand for Further Evidence Submission
Importance of Corroboration in Financial Claims

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

Remanded

The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board found that the Judge's evaluation was based on an ambiguous financial statement and that the Applicant was not properly advised of her opportunity to submit evidence. The case was remanded for further processing.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence, raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge's description of the financial statement was ambiguous and may have affected the evaluation of the case.
Procedural error, raised by the applicantError sustained
The FORM did not reasonably advise Applicant of her opportunity to submit corroborating evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's evaluation of the financial statement was based on an erroneous figure, which affected the outcome. Additionally, the FORM did not adequately inform the Applicant of her opportunity to submit corroborating evidence, necessitating a remand for further processing.

Ignored material evidenceMissing findings

On remand, the judge must

The Judge is instructed to reopen the record to allow the parties to submit relevant evidence.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan (Chair)
Jean E. Smallin
James E. Moody

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: The Judge’s description of Item 7 of the File of Relevant Material (FORM) is ambiguous and may be in error and the error may well have affected his evaluation of the case. The financial statement shows that Applicant, after paying her monthly expenses (but prior to paying down her debts) actually has a monthly remainder of $536.10 (not $263, as the Judge found). According to the financial statement she then uses one half of that ($263) to pay down her debts and is left with a net remainder of $263.10. Additionally, the Judge correctly notes the lack of corroboration for Applicant’s statements regarding her payments on her debts. The FORM, at Section VII, contains language which may not reasonably have advised Applicant of the nature of her opportunity to submit evidence (e.g., documents which would corroborate her claims) under the Directive. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 08-05259.a1 DATE: 05/19/2009 DATE: May 19, 2009 In Re: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-05259

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Applicant also cites to record evidence that two debts (a telephone debt and a bank debt) named in SOR paragraphs 1.e and 1.i. are resolved. James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On October 14, 2008, DOHA 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 March 17, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge found that “Applicant submitted a personal financial statement that showed she has about $263 remaining each month after expenses. That figure includes payment on the debts listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.e 1.f.” (Decision at 3.) The Judge’s description of Item 7 of the File of Relevant Material (FORM) is ambiguous and may be in error and the error may well have affected his evaluation of the case. The financial statement shows that Applicant, after paying her monthly expenses (but prior to paying down her debts) actually has a monthly remainder of $536.10 (not $263, as the Judge found). According to the financial statement she then uses one half of that ($263) to pay down her debts and is left with a net remainder of $263.10. Additionally, the Judge correctly notes the lack of corroboration for Applicant’s statements regarding her payments on her debts. (Decision at p. 4.) The FORM, at Section VII, contains language which may not reasonably have advised Applicant of the nature of her opportunity to submit evidence (e.g., documents which would corroborate her claims) under the Directive. Accordingly, in the interest of administrative economy, the case is hereby remanded to the Judge for further processing and the Judge is instructed to reopen the record to allow the parties to submit relevant evidence. Nothing about this action shall prejudice the appeal rights of the parties.

ORDER

The case is REMANDED to the Administrative Judge for further processing in accordance with this decision. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board