CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05302.a1 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date9/29/2017
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 14-05302.h2) →See the hearing decision (Case 14-05302.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · For Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 14-05302.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05302.a1

Sep 29, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant who was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, primarily due to an outstanding credit card debt exceeding $10,300. The applicant, representing himself, successfully challenged one allegation in the Statement of Reasons (SOR). However, the Judge ruled against him regarding the credit card debt, which was initially misidentified in the SOR.

The case was subsequently remanded for further consideration of this specific credit card debt after the applicant highlighted the misidentification. Despite the remand, the applicant did not demonstrate that the debt exceeding $10,300 had been resolved. Furthermore, he failed to show that he had taken responsible action concerning the credit card account.

Consequently, no mitigating conditions were applied to fully resolve the financial concerns, and the applicant did not receive a favorable outcome for his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not present evidence of a good-faith effort to pay the debt.

Key Rule Quoted

“Under the facts of this case, we conclude that Applicant reasonably, though erroneously, believed that he needed to address only his mortgage account and need not provide evidence about other debts.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 23, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateSep 29, 2017Case remanded for further consideration.

Cite For

Remand Due to Misidentification of Debts in the Statement of Reasons
Consideration of Due Process Issues in Security Clearance Cases
Resolution of One Allegation in Favor of the Applicant Under Guideline F

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

Remanded

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that he was misled by the SOR's erroneous identification of a credit card debt as a mortgage. The Board found this argument persuasive and remanded the case for further consideration of the credit card debt.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJennifer I. Goldstein — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantError sustained
The SOR erroneously stated that the credit card debt arose from a mortgage agreement.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the SOR misidentified the credit card debt as a mortgage, which led to a misunderstanding by the Applicant regarding the debts he needed to address.

No rational connection between facts and conclusion

On remand, the judge must

The Judge must allow the Applicant to address the credit card debt and issue a new Decision in accordance with the Directive.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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: Although, as the Judge found, one of Applicant’s credit reports describes this debt as a credit card, the SOR erroneously stated that it arose from a mortgage agreement. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 14-05302.a1 DATE: 09/29/2017 DATE: September 29, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-05302

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 March 23, 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 June 21, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein 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 Applicant was placed on reasonable notice of the security concern in his case and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we remand the case to the Judge. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis There were two allegations in the SOR. The Judge resolved one of them, a mortgage account, in Applicant’s favor. She resolved the other, a credit card debt of a little over $10,300, against him. The Judge stated that Applicant did not demonstrate that he had resolved this debt, having claimed without corroboration that it was connected in some way with the mortgage. She concluded that Applicant did not show responsible action in regard to the credit card account, nor did he present evidence of a good-faith effort to pay it. The Judge noted that the SOR described this account as a mortgage, although Applicant’s credit report shows that it is a credit card.1

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s Appeal Brief includes new evidence, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, we will consider Applicant’s new evidence to the extent that it bears upon the due process issue that he has raised. See, e.g., ISCR Case No.16-01129 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug 7, 2017). Applicant notes that the SOR misidentified the credit card debt as a mortgage account. He argues that he assumed that, for accounting purposes, the creditor had split this account into two, and he responded to the SOR and to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) on the belief that the only concern in his case arose from the mortgage. We find this argument persuasive. Although, as the Judge found, one of Applicant’s credit reports describes this debt as a credit card, the SOR erroneously stated that it arose from a mortgage agreement.2 Under the facts of this case, we conclude that Applicant reasonably, though erroneously, believed that he needed to address only his mortgage account and need not provide evidence about other debts. Accordingly, the best resolution of this case is to remand it to the Judge to give Applicant an opportunity to address the credit card debt, after which she will issue a new Decision in accordance with the Directive. Other issues raised in this appeal are not ripe for consideration. The SOR reads, in pertinent part, as follows: 1a.: “You are indebted to [Bank] for mortgage [account number] that has been charged off in the approximate amount of $71,218.00. As of the date of this Statement of Reasons, approximately $33,218.00 was delinquent and unpaid.” 1b. “You are indebted to [Bank] for mortgage [account number] that has been charged off in the approximate amount of $10,340.00. As of the date of this Statement of Reasons, it remains unpaid.” As noted above, this account is actually for a credit card, owed to the same bank. In addition, on the first page of the FORM, Department Counsel provided an incorrect account number for the credit card debt, one that actually applied to an account that was not alleged in the SOR. She supplied a correct number on the second page of the FORM.

ORDER

The Decision is REMANDED. 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