CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-02933.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-02933.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-02933.a1

Sep 23, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a lack of timely evidence regarding financial stability. The appeal board upheld the denial, finding no due process violations or harmful errors in the initial decision.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to provide timely documentary evidence in response to the File of Relevant Material. Her assertions of mailing the required documents were not supported by postal receipts or other verifiable proof.

Ultimately, the applicant did not establish a prima facie case of due process violations, leading to the affirmation of the denial based on disqualifying conditions F3 and F4.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F3raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
F4raisedDelinquent Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“Applicant has not made a prima facie showing that she had actually made a documentary response to the FORM.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 2, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 21, 2016Decision made by Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan.
Decision dateSep 23, 2016Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Due Process Considerations in Security Clearance Cases
Timeliness of Evidence Submission Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Prima Facie Evidence

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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that documents she mailed were not considered by the Judge. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no evidence that the applicant submitted the documents in question and no assertion of harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowErin C. Hogan — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted that she mailed in documents which the Judge never considered.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the applicant did not make a prima facie showing that she had submitted a documentary response to the FORM, and therefore, there was no reason to believe she was denied due process. Additionally, the applicant did not assert any harmful error.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. 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: Applicant asserts that she mailed in documents which the Judge never considered. One document the Judge addressed. On document is dated after the close of the record. One document refers to events that occurred after the Judge’s decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-02933.a1 DATE: 09/23/2016 DATE: September 23, 2016 In Re: ----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-02933

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 December 2, 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 July 21, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises an issue of due process. In doing so, she makes assertions from outside the record, which we normally cannot consider. However, we will consider new evidence insofar as it bears upon threshold issues of due process or jurisdiction. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015). She states that, in February 2016, she sent documentary evidence to DOHA in response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) that did not make it into the record. She has attached to her brief what she claims to be this evidence, though she states that she does not have the postal receipt verifying that it was mailed. The record shows that DOHA sent the FORM to Applicant in January 2016, advising her of her right to provide a documentary response. The letter stated that she had 30 days from receipt to do so. Letter to Applicant, dated January 28, 2016. Applicant received the letter on February 3, 2016, as evidenced by her signed receipt acknowledgment. DOHA received nothing from Applicant within the 30 days allotted. Memorandum For Administrative Judge, dated April 5, 2016. Applicant’s brief does not assert that she asked for additional time, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that she did so. The attachments to Applicant’s brief include her Answer to the SOR, which is part of the record and which the Judge addressed. Decision at 2. The attachments include two other documents, one of which is a credit report dated July 13, 2016, well after the close of the record. The other document shows that certain items were removed from Applicant’s credit reports, with a removal date of August 2016, after the Judge issued her decision. Applicant’s brief alludes to nothing else that she claims to have submitted. Applicant has not made a prima facie showing that she had actually made a documentary response to the FORM. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that she was denied due process. Beyond this, Applicant has not made an assertion of harmful error. Accordingly, the Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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