CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07882.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07882.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07882.a1

deniedDec 7, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The Department of Defense denied an applicant's eligibility for a public trust position under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant, representing himself, failed to adequately address concerns regarding his financial situation, particularly tax issues.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's insufficient responses to the government's requests for financial information. Specifically, the record lacked documentary evidence to substantiate his claims about his tax returns and any arrangements made with the IRS. Although the applicant asserted he was not asked for financial information, evidence demonstrated he had received notice of his right to respond.

The appeal of this decision was also denied, as the applicant could not demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's initial ruling. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for the public trust position was denied due to these unresolved financial considerations.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not respond adequately to the government's request for information regarding his financial situation.
The record lacked documentary evidence supporting the applicant's claims about his tax returns and arrangements with the IRS.
The applicant's assertion of not being asked for financial information was contradicted by the evidence showing he received notice of his right to respond.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review a case de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 9, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldOct 6, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher.
Decision dateDec 7, 2017Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Failure to Provide Requested Financial Information Under Guideline F
Lack of Documentary Evidence Supporting Financial Claims
Due Process in Responding to a FORM

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

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: Applicant also asserts that he did not provide information about his financial situation “because it was not asked of to provide any of that information.” and “[he] can provide that information.” A review of the record indicates that Applicant received a copy of the FORM, accompanied by a DOHA cover letter. The cover letter in particular stated that Applicant could submit “any material you wish the Administrative Judge to consider [.]” The FORM itself advised Applicant that his response could set forth “objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation as appropriate.” Accordingly, Applicant received the due process afforded by the Directive and his failure to make a response to the FORM cannot fairly be attributed to inadequate notice of his right to do so. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-07882.a1 DATE: 12/7/2017 DATE: December 7, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 15-07882

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 eligibility for a public trust position. On June 9, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness 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 October 6, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant eligibility for a public trust position. 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 did not file a response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). The Judge based his adverse decision in the case in large measure on the fact that the record contained no documentary evidence supporting Applicant’s assertions that he filed his 2013-2014 Federal and state tax returns, or otherwise describing arrangements or contacts he may have had with the IRS concerning his tax issues. Decision at 5. On appeal, Applicant offers new evidence in the form of a narrative statement describing his financial situation and the status of his tax issues. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also asserts that he did not provide information about his financial situation “because it was not asked of me to provide any of that information” and “[he] can provide that information.” A review of the record indicates that Applicant received a copy of the FORM, accompanied by a DOHA cover letter, in November 2016. The cover letter in particular stated that Applicant could submit “any material you wish the Administrative Judge to consider[.]” Cover Letter, dated November 3, 2016. The FORM itself advised Applicant that his response could set forth “objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation as appropriate.” Accordingly, Applicant received the due process afforded by the Directive and his failure to make a response to the FORM cannot fairly be attributed to inadequate notice of his right to do so. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05094 at 2, n.1 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2016). Finally, Applicant challenges some of the Judge’s findings of fact relating to the debt for a medical bill alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b. The Judge found in Applicant’s favor as to that allegation, so it is not at issue on appeal. The Board does not review a case de novo. Applicant has not established any 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