CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-00821.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-00821.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-00821.a1

Jun 8, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, contested the denial of her security clearance, which was based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal focused on the applicant's claim that the Judge did not receive all documents she submitted in response to the Statement of Reasons.

However, the Appeal Board found no evidence to support this claim. The Board concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the Judge did not receive all submitted documents and did not make a prima facie showing of a due process violation.

Consequently, the Appeal Board affirmed the initial denial, upholding the decision based on Guideline F, specifically citing Disqualifying Condition F1 and applying Mitigating Condition F3. The security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F3rejectedThe Individual Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Repay Overdue Creditors or Has Otherwise Resolved DebtsThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claims of good faith efforts.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 18, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 9, 2016Decision made by Administrative Judge Shari Dam.
Decision dateJun 8, 2016Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Due Process Considerations in Security Clearance Cases
Requirements for Demonstrating Submission of Documents in Appeals
Impact of Unfavorable Decisions Not Considered in Appeals

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 Judge did not receive all documents she submitted. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted that the Judge did not receive all the documents she submitted.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claim that the Judge did not receive all submitted documents, and thus concluded that there was no due process violation.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
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: Applicant asserts that the Judge did not receive all the documents she submitted. Her response to the FORM includes six and a fraction pages. The Judge cites to her documentation. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-00821.a1 DATE: 06/08/2016 DATE: June 8, 2016 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-00821

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 September 18, 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 March 9, 2016, after considering the record, 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 As a preliminary matter, Applicant has raised an issue of due process. In her appeal brief, 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). In her appeal brief, Applicant states, “I think the Judge did not get all the information I had originally sent. . . .” She notes that she was in a hurry when she received the documents and did not have an opportunity to make copies of them. She requested new copies of the documents that she believes were missing and received copies marked with later dates. She attached to her appeal brief a cumulative billing statement, documents showing payments to creditors, and a credit report. The additional documents total about 60 pages. We have examined Applicant’s argument in light of the record as a whole. On November 18, 2015, she was sent a copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM) and advised of her right to submit objections and additional information within 30 days of its receipt. On December 14, 2015, Applicant submitted a response to the FORM that consisted of a narrative explanation and proof of payments to creditors. Her response in the record is six and a fraction pages. In her decision, the Judge referenced Applicant’s response to the FORM and the attached proof of payments. Under the facts of this case, we conclude that Applicant has not made a prima facie showing that she submitted more documents than those contained in the record. In other words, she failed to provide a reasonable basis for concluding that the Judge did not receive all of the documents forwarded in her response to the FORM. 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. 14-04959 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2016). Beyond this, Applicant’s brief does not make an assertion of harmful error.

ORDER

The case is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael R’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed; James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board