CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-05243.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-05243.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-05243.a1

Jul 11, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves a 47-year-old federal contractor and military retiree whose security clearance was challenged under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The applicant had approximately $16,000 in unresolved debts.

The appeal board did not issue a final outcome but instead remanded the case. This decision was based on errors found in the judge's initial findings regarding the status and specific amounts of several debts. The board determined these errors were substantial enough to require correction.

Consequently, the case was sent back for further review to ensure accurate findings on the financial issues before a new decision could be rendered.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 23, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 28, 2017
Decision dateJul 11, 2017remanded for errors in findings of fact

Cite For

Remand Due to Errors in Findings of Fact Under Guideline F
Significance of Accurate Debt Reporting in Security Clearance Cases
Impact of Financial Delinquencies on Security Clearance Determinations

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 review of an adverse security clearance decision based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant contended that the Judge made factual errors regarding the status of certain debts and the amount of another debt. The Board agreed with the applicant's claims and remanded the case for correction of these errors.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowJennifer I. Goldstein — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge erred in finding that the debts in SOR 1.a and 1.c were unresolved despite evidence showing they were paid.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge incorrectly listed the amount of the debt in SOR 1.e as $8,097 instead of the correct amount of $1,523.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge made errors in fact-finding regarding the applicant's debts, which necessitated a remand for correction and reevaluation.

Ignored material evidence

On remand, the judge must

The Judge must correct the errors and issue a new decision in accordance with the Directive.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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 contends the Judge erred in making certain findings of fact. Specifically, Applicant notes that the Judge found that the debts in SOR 1.a and 1.cwere unresolved when a credit report reflects both of those accounts were paid. Applicant also notes the Judge incorrectly listed the amount of the debt in the SOR 1.e, i.e, listing it as $8,097, instead of $1,523 as reflected in the SOR. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 15-05243.a1 DATE: 07/11/2017 DATE: July 11, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-05243

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Ryan C. Nerney, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On March 23, 2016, 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 hearing. On April 28, 2017, after the hearing, 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 the Judge erred in her findings of fact and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we remand the decision. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant is a 47-year-old employee of a Federal contractor. He is married with three children. He retired from the military after 23 years of service. Applicant received a Chapter 13 bankruptcy discharge in 2007. In addition to the Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the SOR also alleged that Applicant had eight debts totaling about $16,000. He attributed his current financial problems to his wife’s hospitalization for an undisclosed period and his unemployment for about a year following his military retirement in 2013. Credit reports document Applicant’s financial delinquencies. He failed to document he resolved five of the eight delinquent debts. Following his bankruptcy, he failed to change his practice of spending funds he did not have. He recently procured a loan for a $19,000 motorcycle and has not demonstrated that future financial problems are unlikely.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends the Judge erred in making certain findings of fact. Specifically, he notes that the Judge found that the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.cwere unresolved when a credit report reflects both of those accounts were paid. See, Entries 1 and 13 in Government Exhibit 6. He also notes the Judge incorrectly listed the amount of the debt in SOR ¶ 1.e, i.e., listing it as $8,097, instead of $1,523 as reflected in the SOR. When these errors are viewed as a whole, we are unable to determine that they are harmless. We conclude the best resolution is to remand the case to the Judge to correct the errors and issue a new decision in accordance with the Directive. Other issues raised by Applicant are not ripe for consideration. The decision is REMANDED. 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 F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board