CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07869.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07869.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07869.a1

Jun 30, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves a 43-year-old applicant with two children whose security clearance was challenged under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The applicant had 16 delinquent debts totaling over $26,000, which raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) paragraph 20.

The appeal board identified significant errors in the judge's initial findings. Specifically, the judge made incorrect determinations regarding the applicant's marital status and employment history. These factual inaccuracies were deemed substantial enough to affect the overall assessment of the applicant's financial responsibility and the potential application of mitigating conditions under AG paragraph 21.

Due to these errors, the appeal board did not issue a final security clearance decision but instead remanded the case for further consideration. This means the case will return to the lower level for a new review, taking into account the corrected information regarding the applicant's personal and professional circumstances.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant provided no corroboration of her claims to have contacted creditors.

Key Rule Quoted

“The best course of action is to remand the case to the Judge for additional processing as appropriate.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 8, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 17, 2017
Decision dateJun 30, 2017

Cite For

Remand Due to Errors in Findings of Marital Status and Employment History
Consideration of Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Lack of Corroboration for Claims Made by the Applicant

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 denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant contended that the Judge erred in finding her marital history and employment status. The Board agreed that the Judge made factual errors and remanded the case for further processing.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert J. Kilmartin — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge erred in finding that Applicant was married twice.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge erred in finding that Applicant has been employed full time since June 2015.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge made errors in the findings of fact regarding the Applicant's marital status and employment status. The errors were significant enough to warrant a remand for further processing.

No rational connection between facts and conclusion

On remand, the judge must

The Judge should reconsider the findings regarding Applicant's marital status and employment status, and process the case accordingly.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo 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: The Judge erred in finding that Applicant was married twice and that she has been employed full time since June 2015. The best course of action is to remand the case to the Judge for additional processing as appropriate. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 15-07869.a1 DATE: 06/30/2017 DATE: June 30, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-07869

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 February 8, 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 April 17, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin 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 the 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 43 years old, has been married twice, and has two children. “She has been employed by a Federal contractor since January 2015, pending the outcome of her clearance application. She has also worked full time for the U.S. Postal Service since June 2015.” Decision at 2. The SOR alleges 16 delinquent debts totaling more than $26,000. Applicant admitted 15 of the SOR allegations and denied a state tax lien of $61. In her Answer to the SOR, she provided documentation showing proof of payments towards three debts, including payment of the state tax lien of $61. She provided no other documentation. In her Answer to the SOR, she repeatedly stated that she has been in contact with creditors to make arrangements to resolve the debts, but offered no corroboration. The Judge concluded that Applicant had not met her burden of persuasion.

DISCUSSION

In the appeal brief, Applicant contends the Judge erred in finding that she was married twice and that she has been employed full time since June 2015. Documents in the File of Relevant Material support her contentions. The summary of her background interview reflects that she was a part-time employee of the Postal Service in 2015. Additionally, her security clearance application reflects her employment with the Federal contractor was contingent on her obtaining a security clearance and that she has been married once. While the error regarding her marital history was a harmless error because it most likely had no affect on the ultimate decision, we cannot draw that same conclusion regarding the employment status error. The Judge incorrectly indicated twice in the findings of fact that Applicant was gainfully employed since June 2015. In his analysis, the Judge noted Applicant expressed her intent to pay all of the debts as soon as she is gainfully employed, but produced no evidence of following through on that intent. Given these circumstances, the Board concludes the best course of action is to remand the case to the Judge for additional processing as appropriate. Applicant raised other appeal issues, but it would be premature to address them at this time. She also provided a number of documents that she did not previously submit to the Judge for consideration. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

ORDER

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