CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07047.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07047.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07047.a1

Aug 1, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The judge found that the applicant failed to provide evidence of payments to creditors listed in the Statement of Reasons (SOR) and did not object to the government's evidence presented in the File of Relevant Material (FORM).

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal board affirmed the denial. The board concluded that the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's initial decision.

Ultimately, the applicant's failure to provide evidence of mitigating circumstances, specifically payments to creditors, and his lack of objection to the government's evidence, led to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 14, 2016
Answer filedMay 31, 2017Decision on written record requested.
Hearing held—Decision based on written record.
Decision dateAug 1, 2017

Cite For

Burden of Proof in Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Established
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal Process

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the judge erred by relying on old credit information and submitted new evidence on appeal. The Board affirmed the judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued it was error for the Judge to base his adverse decision on old credit information.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not establish any harmful error and failed to present evidence to mitigate the security concerns raised by the government.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. 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: Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-07047.a1 DATE: 08/01/2017 DATE: August 1, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-07047

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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 May 14, 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 decision on the written record. On May 31, 2017 after considering the record, 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 requested that his case be decided on the written record and then filed only a narrative statement in response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). His response did not object to any items submitted by the government in the FORM. The Judge based his adverse decision in the case on the items in the FORM, noting that Applicant had presented “no evidence that he made any payments to his SOR creditors.” Decision at 3. On appeal, Applicant argues that it was error for the Judge to base his adverse decision on “old credit information.” In support of his assertion, he offer new evidence in the form of multiple documents that were not part of the record before the Judge. Most of those documents post-date the submission of his case for decision. Applicant’s presentation on appeal does not establish any harmful error on the part of the Judge. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Moreover, once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. Applicant did not object to the information in the FORM and did not avail himself of the opportunity to present more recent credit information. The Board does not review a case de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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 Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board