A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-06811.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 23, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, represented by counsel, sought a security clearance but was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F and foreign influence under Guideline B. The applicant admitted to significant debts, including a charged-off account of approximately $25,000 and a state tax lien of about $575, which were deemed disqualifying. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis and concluding that the decision aligned with national security interests.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to a charged-off account of approximately $25,000 and a state tax lien of about $575.
- The applicant failed to present evidence that would mitigate the financial concerns raised under Guideline F.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20(a) The behavior was not recentrejected
- AG ¶ 20(b) The conditions that resulted in the financial problems were largely beyond the person's controlrejected
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-04-20
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-03-17
- Decision date
- 2017-06-23
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
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.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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