CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-02585.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-02585.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-02585.a1

Dec 20, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple financial delinquencies. The applicant had 12 delinquent debts totaling approximately $14,000 and failed to file and pay state and federal income taxes for 2010.

While the applicant admitted to most of the allegations, he contested one specific debt. However, he did not provide documentation to demonstrate payments on any of the alleged debts.

The appeal board reviewed the case and found no harmful error in the judge's decision. Consequently, the denial of the security clearance was affirmed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance 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 issuedNov 9, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 29, 2016
Decision dateDec 20, 2016

Cite For

Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Requirements for Documentation of Debt Payments
Standards for Security Clearance Denials Based on Financial Issues

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 filed by the applicant after the denial of his security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that he was making payments on certain debts and presented new evidence that was not considered by the Administrative Judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip S. Howe — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant failed to identify any harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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: In the appeal brief, Applicant argues that he is making specific payments on certain debts, some debts have been paid, and others do not appear on his credit report. In support of those arguments, he presented documents from creditors and a credit report that had not been previously presented to the Judge. Those documents and his arguments based on those documents constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-02585.a1 DATE: 12/20/2016 DATE: December 20, 2016 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-02585

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 November 9, 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 September 29, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had 12 delinquent debts totaling about $14,000 and that he failed to file and pay his state and Federal income taxes for 2010. In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations with the exception of one debt of approximately $900, stated he was making payments on three of the debts, including the Federal tax debt, and indicated that he paid off the state tax debt. In the decision, the Judge found that Applicant failed to submit documentation showing payments on any of the alleged debts. It is reasonable for Judges to expect applicants to present documentation about the satisfaction of individual debts. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-10310 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 30, 2008). In the appeal brief, Applicant argues that he is making specific payments on certain debts, some debts have been paid, and others do not appear on his credit report. In support of those arguments, he presented documents from creditors and a credit report that had not been previously presented to the Judge. Those documents and his arguments based on those documents constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant has failed to identify any harmful error. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on the record. “The general standard is that a clearance 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). See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

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