CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-06811.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-06811.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-06811.a1

Jun 23, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, represented by counsel, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant admitted to significant financial issues, specifically a charged-off account of approximately $25,000 and a state tax lien of about $575. These debts were identified as disqualifying conditions.

While mitigating conditions under Guideline F, specifically AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(b), were considered, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to alleviate the financial concerns. Consequently, the Judge determined that the disqualifying conditions outweighed any mitigating factors.

The Appeal Board reviewed the decision and affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis. The Board concluded that the denial was consistent with national security interests, upholding the initial decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's significant debts were ongoing and not mitigated.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not demonstrate that the financial issues were beyond their control.

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 issuedApr 20, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 17, 2017
Decision dateJun 23, 2017

Cite For

Denial Based on Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Favorable Findings Under Guideline B
Limitations on New Evidence in Appeal Proceedings

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 Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations and foreign influence. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's analysis and that new evidence presented was not considered. The adverse decision was upheld.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant failed to assert that the Judge committed any harmful error in his analysis of the record evidence.

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. The applicant did not present any harmful error in the appeal.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealNo de-novo re-decisionHarmful-error gatekeeper

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; Guideline B DIGEST: Applicant’s narrative statement and credit report constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board can neither receive nor consider. Applicant has failed to assert that the Judge committed any harmful error in his analysis of the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-06811.a1 DATE: 06/23/2017 DATE: June 23, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-06811

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Jeremy A. Robinson, Esq. 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) and Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On March 17, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the Guideline B allegation and on three of the five delinquent debts alleged under Guideline F. No issues regarding those favorable findings have been raised on appeal. The Judge found against Applicant on a charged-off account of about $25,000 and a state tax lien of about $575. Applicant admitted both of those allegations in responding to the SOR. In the appeal brief, Applicant contends that the amount of the larger debt is in error. In support of that argument, he presents a narrative statement and credit report that were not previously presented to the Judge. This narrative statement and credit report constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board can neither receive nor consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant has failed to assert that the Judge committed any harmful error in his analysis of the record evidence. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this 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