CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-05849.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-05849.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-05849.a1

Jul 17, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant unresolved financial issues. The applicant faced nine debts totaling over $23,000, which raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) paragraph 19.

Despite the applicant's claims of resolving some debts, the judge found the overall financial situation insufficient to mitigate security concerns. A key factor in the denial was the applicant's inability to sufficiently address an outstanding IRS debt, which the judge specifically emphasized.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, noting its inability to consider new evidence or grant extensions for evidence gathering. Ultimately, the presence of over $23,000 in unresolved debt, particularly the IRS obligation, led to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's claims of resolving some debts were insufficient to mitigate the concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“A Judge has no authority to promise an applicant a clearance or to advise on the quantum of evidence that would mitigate the concerns in his or her case.”
— ISCR Case No. 14-02806 at 3, n.1 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2015)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 20, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 9, 2017
Decision dateJul 17, 2017

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence
Importance of Addressing Significant Debts, Particularly IRS Obligations, in Security Clearance Cases.

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 seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the judge's comments created an expectation regarding the outcome. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant alleged that the judge's comments created an expectation regarding the outcome of the case.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance. The applicant's claims did not demonstrate that the Judge's actions had a prejudicial effect on the outcome of the case.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
William S. Fields

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: A Judge has no authority to promise an applicant a clearance or to advise on the quantum of evidence that would mitigate the concerns in his or her case. In addition, actions in a clearance adjudication may have significant ramifications in other aspects of an applicant’s life. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-05849.a1 DATE: 07/17/2017 DATE: July 17, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-05849

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 April 20, 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 May 9, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Mark Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief states the “Judge told me to worry about the IRS debt which I did . . .” The Judge told Applicant “[t]he key issue here is your IRS debt. That’s a lot more important than any of the other ones. I know in a couple of months, you’re not going to be able to show much progress on $26,000 in debt. You need to have a great job to make a dent in that. If you can make some progress -.”1 The appeal brief also contains a narrative statement from the Applicant explaining his financial situation and stating that he fully resolved the significant Federal tax lien alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a. However, the Judge found in favor of Applicant with respect to that allegation. The Judge found against Applicant on nine debts with a total value of more than $23,000. Additionally, Applicant requests that the Board grant him more time to pay off his debts because he has been “out of work for nearly a month with no pay.” The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Moreover, it has no authority to grant an applicant an extension for the purpose of obtaining more evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01778 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 31, 2017). The Board does not review a case de novo. The Board cannot conclude on the substance of this case that the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields

FOOTNOTES

1 Tr. 56. The Judge’s statement to Applicant created a situation that was similar to one we reviewed in ADP Case No. 15-03786 (App. Bd. Apr. 21, 2017). As we noted there “A Judge has no authority to promise an applicant a clearance or to advise on the quantum of evidence that would mitigate the concerns in his or her case. See e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02806 at 3, n.1 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2015). In addition, actions in a clearance adjudication may have significant ramifications in other aspects of an applicant’s life.” Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board