CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01787.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01787.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01787.a1

Nov 22, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to provide sufficient documentation regarding efforts to resolve delinquent debts. Specifically, the applicant did not respond to the government's File of Relevant Material (FORM), and the judge found a lack of evidence to substantiate claims of debt resolution.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, noting that it could not consider new evidence or grant extensions for the applicant to obtain additional documentation. The board emphasized that the judge's role is not to act as an investigator, and the burden of proof for mitigating security concerns rests with the applicant.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15, highlighting the applicant's failure to mitigate concerns related to financial irresponsibility and personal conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review a case de novo and the adverse impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a relevant or material consideration in evaluating his or her security eligibility.”
— ISCR Case No. 15-06908 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 18, 2017)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 16, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldSep 7, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson.
Decision dateNov 22, 2017Appeal board affirmed the decision.

Cite For

Insufficient Documentation Regarding Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Limitations on the Judge's Role as an Independent Fact Finder
The Appeal Board's Inability to Consider New Evidence or Grant Extensions for Evidence Submission.

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 personal conduct. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's actions or conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge acted arbitrarily and capriciously by serving as an investigator and contacting the bank or collection attorneys.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Judge acted within her authority and the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to overturn the decision.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Michael 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; Guideline E DIGEST: The Judge had no authority to serve as an investigator in the case and contact the bank or the collection attorneys. To do so would be inconsistent with her role as an independent fact finder. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-01787.a1 DATE: 11/22/2017 DATE: November 22, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01787

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 September 16, 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 E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On September 7, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson 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 did not respond to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). The Judge based her adverse decision as to the Guideline F allegations in large measure on the lack of documentation to substantiate his assertion that he has been working to resolve his delinquent debts. Decision at 5-6. On appeal, Applicant asserts that he had previously “supplied Bank account numbers and the phone numbers of the Collection lawyers to whom [he had] been paying for the last 5 years.” The Judge considered that information in reaching her decision. Id. at 1, 3, 5 and 7. The Judge had no authority to serve as an investigator in the case and contact the bank or the collection attorneys. To do so would be inconsistent with her role as an independent fact finder. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-00420 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 7, 2017). Applicant does not challenge the Judge’s adverse decision as to the Guideline E allegations. He asks for more time “to produce the financial statements when they arrive” for the Board’s review. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal and has no authority to grant Applicant an extension for the purpose of obtaining more evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29; ISCR Case No. 15- 08474 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 1, 2017). The Board does not review a case de novo and the adverse impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a relevant or material consideration in evaluating his or her security eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-06908 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 18, 2017). Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael 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