CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-00824.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-00824.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-00824.a1

Aug 2, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent debts and a failure to file tax returns. The appeal board affirmed the denial, citing the applicant's inability to provide specific evidence for his claims of having paid certain debts.

The board identified Disqualifying Conditions F1 and F3, noting that the applicant did not adequately identify which specific debts he claimed to have resolved. This lack of specificity contributed to an unfavorable finding regarding his financial responsibility.

Ultimately, the judges found no harmful error in the original decision to deny the clearance, emphasizing the critical role of national security in such determinations. The denial was upheld based on the applicant's unresolved financial issues and insufficient evidence of remediation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFailure to File Tax Returns
F3raisedDelinquent Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“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)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 5, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 28, 2019
Decision dateAug 2, 2019

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Failure to File Tax Returns Under Guideline F
Insufficient Specificity in Claims of Debt Payment
Emphasis on National Security Considerations in Clearance Decisions

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 denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the judge made errors in evaluating evidence and mitigating circumstances. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowErin Hogan — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed the judge made errors regarding the consideration of evidence and mitigating circumstances.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the applicant failed to identify specific harmful errors and did not demonstrate that the judge's decision was arbitrary or capricious. The judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and articulated satisfactorily.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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: Applicant failed to identify the debt he claims he paid that resulted in an unfavorable finding. This assignment of error fails for lack of specificity. His other contentions are neither enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. He has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-00824.a1 DATE: 08/02/2019 DATE: August 2, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 17-00824 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

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 July 5, 2017, 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 hearing. On May 28, 2019, after the hearing, Chief Administrative Judge Erin Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant failed to file his Federal and state income tax returns for 2012 through 2015 as required, had delinquent Federal and state tax debs totaling over $8,000, and had five other delinquent debts totaling over $21,000. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on three of the alleged debts and against him on the remaining allegations. Applicant’s appeal brief consists of the following assignments of error: This letter to you is a submittal for an appeal brief. The Judge in my case did make a few errors that I feel would have made for a different outcome. During my trial I provide[d] evidence to show that I paid an outstanding debt, but the judge concluded that I did not pay that particular debt. I don’t believe the judge took into account my mitigating steps and all the life changing things I went through to get to this point. Seeing that the Judge made this one error [there] maybe more. Applicant failed to identify the debt he claims he paid that resulted in an unfavorable finding. This assignment of error fails for lack of specificity. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-00599 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 24, 2018). His other contentions are neither enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Id. He has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error. 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, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility 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 James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board