CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-01074.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-01074.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-01074.a1

Oct 16, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to ten delinquent debts. The appeal board affirmed this denial, finding no due process violations.

The applicant's ten delinquent debts raised security concerns under Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20(a). While Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 20(c) and AG ¶ 20(d) were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the concerns.

The denial was primarily based on the applicant's failure to provide adequate corroborating evidence for her claims regarding the debts. The judge determined that the applicant did not demonstrate a clear understanding of the necessity for such evidence, leading to the final decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support claims of unexpected illnesses leading to debts.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's evidence regarding a debt consolidation plan was insufficient.

Key Rule Quoted

“"Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights under the Directive."”
— ISCR Case No. 05-03143 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec 20, 2006)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 10, 2009
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldAug 31, 2009Decision made by Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason.
Decision dateOct 16, 2009Appeal affirmed by the board.

Cite For

Insufficient Corroborating Evidence for Financial Claims Under Guideline F
Due Process Expectations for Pro Se Applicants
Standards for Granting Security Clearances 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.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and that she was denied due process. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that she was denied due process.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's decision, affirming that the adverse decision was reasonable based on the evidence presented regarding the applicant's delinquent debts and the lack of corroborating evidence.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
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: Applicant states that she was not asked to provide corroborating evidence. Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take reasonable steps to protect their rights. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-01074.a1 DATE: 10/16/2009 DATE: October 16, 2009 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-01074

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT 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 April 10, 2009, 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 August 31, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. We also construe Applicant’s appeal as contending that she was denied due process. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found against Applicant on ten of twenty delinquent debts alleged in the SOR. Of those debts he stated that Applicant had provided insufficient evidence corroborating her claims that the debts resulted from unexpected illnesses in her family. He also concluded that she did not provide sufficient evidence concerning the nature of a debt consolidation plan. Applicant contends that she did not understand that she needed to provide corroborating evidence or other matters referenced by the Judge. She stated that she was never asked for such documents. “Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights under the Directive.” ISCR Case No. 05-03143 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec 20, 2006). In this case, Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record. She was provided with a copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) and notified of her opportunity to provide documentary evidence to rebut or explain the security concerns in her case. Applicant provided documentary evidence (none of which substantiated the medical explanations she had previously offered). The Judge considered Applicant’s response to the FORM, along with other record evidence. There is no reason to believe that Applicant was denied due process. In light of the Judge’s findings about the extent of Applicant’s delinquent debt and the paucity of record evidence in mitigation, his adverse decision is reasonable. His decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 6. See also Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) (“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”).

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board