CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-04959.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-04959.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-04959.a1

Apr 6, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F1, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations.

The applicant failed to resolve her outstanding financial issues as required by Guideline F, and subsequently did not provide additional evidence after being given an opportunity to do so. The judges found no due process violation, noting that the applicant had adequate notice and opportunity to respond to the concerns raised.

The appeal affirmed the initial denial, concluding that the applicant had sufficient opportunity to present her case and did not demonstrate a prima facie case for reconsideration. The security clearance was ultimately DENIED.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 16, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 19, 2016
Decision dateApr 6, 2016

Cite For

Due Process Considerations in Security Clearance Cases
Requirements for Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Applicant's Burden to Provide Evidence in Support of 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

Affirmed

The appeal was brought by the applicant after the denial of her security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that she was denied due process due to missing documents and that the judge did not consider all evidence. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error and that the applicant had the opportunity to present her case.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed she was denied due process because documents she submitted were not included in the record.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the judge did not consider all evidence.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the applicant was provided a reasonable opportunity to supplement the record and did not demonstrate that she was denied due process. The Board also concluded that the judge considered all evidence in the record.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael 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: The Directive does not allow us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-04959.a1 DATE: 04/06/2016 DATE: April 6, 2016 In Re: --------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-04959

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 16, 2015, 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 decision on the written record. On February 19, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 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. As a preliminary matter, Applicant has raised an issue of due process. In pressing her argument, she includes matters from outside the record, which we are generally precluded from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, we will consider new evidence insofar as it bears upon threshold questions such as jurisdiction or due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015). Applicant states that she mailed documents to a named official at the DoD Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) regarding her efforts at debt repayment. Applicant states that, believing that these documents would become part of the administrative record, she provided no further information upon receipt of the SOR.1 However, she states that they were not included in the record, with the result that the Judge made his final decision without reference to all of her evidence. We have examined Applicant’s argument in light of the record as a whole. She was sent a copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), which contained the documentary evidence upon which the Government intended to rely in its case in chief. The FORM was accompanied by a cover letter from a DOHA official and a copy of the Directive. On July 16, 2015, Applicant acknowledged receipt of these documents. Both the FORM and the cover letter advised her of her right to make a documentary response to the FORM. The Directive contains such guidance as well. In the FORM, Department Counsel advised Applicant that she had a right to submit “a documentary response setting forth objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation, as appropriate.” The cover letter stated that she could provide “any additional information” that she wanted the Judge to consider. Cover Letter, dated July 9, 2015. A memorandum, dated November 18, 2015, and signed on behalf of the DOHA Director, notes that Applicant did not submit additional evidence. Under the facts of this case, we conclude that Applicant has not made a prima facie showing that she submitted documents other than those that were attached to her SOR answer and that were included in the FORM. Indeed, several of the documents that she has attached to her Appeal Brief actually post-date the Judge’s decision. Although Applicant may believe that the FORM did not contain all of the evidence that she would like the Judge to have considered, she was provided with a reasonable opportunity to supplement the record and declined to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that Applicant was not denied her right to due process. Applicant states that her continued employment is contingent upon her maintaining a clearance. However, the Directive 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). To the extent that Applicant’s inclusion of some documents already in the record constitutes an argument that the Judge did not consider them, we conclude that she has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06093 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 4, 2015). Beyond this, Applicant’s brief does not make an assertion of harmful error.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael 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

FOOTNOTES

1 The record includes Applicant’s answer to the SOR, followed by documents. It appears that she did provide about twenty pages of evidence in support of her SOR answer, despite her contrary assertion in the Appeal Brief. We construe her brief to mean that she submitted no further evidence after having received the FORM.