CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-17520.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-17520.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-17520.a1

Sep 20, 2007· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial concerns. The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F1.

The applicant failed to provide persuasive evidence to rebut the specific financial concerns detailed in the Statement of Reasons (SOR). Additionally, the applicant did not respond to the government's file of relevant material, which further contributed to the decision.

The denial was upheld on appeal because the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 17, 2006
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision based on the written record.
Hearing heldMar 19, 2007Decision made by Administrative Judge Joan Caton Anthony.
Decision dateSep 20, 2007Appeal affirmed by the Board.

Cite For

Failure to Rebut Financial Allegations Under Guideline F
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal
Expectation of Pro Se Applicants to Protect Their Rights

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 from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant did not assert any errors by the Administrative Judge and instead submitted new evidence, which the Board could not consider. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJoan Caton Anthony — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error and the appeal contained new evidence that could not be considered. The Judge's decision was based on the lack of persuasive evidence from the Applicant to rebut the financial concerns raised in the SOR.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

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 Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-17520.a1 DATE: 09/20/2007 DATE: September 20, 2007 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-17520

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On August 17, 2006, DOHA 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 the case be decided on the written record. On March 19, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Joan Caton Anthony denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Decision at 5. Applicant’s Appeal Brief at 1. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of a statement from Applicant which summarizes his recent efforts to pay off the debts listed in the SOR. The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In this case, Applicant elected to have a decision based upon the written record, and then did not respond to the government’s file of relevant material (FORM). The Judge based her decision, in part, on the fact that: “Applicant provided no persuasive evidence to rebut the financial concerns specified in the SOR . . .” The Board has previously noted that it is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present documentation about the satisfaction of specific debts. See ISCR Case No. 04- 10671 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2006). In his brief, Applicant states “. . . I was unaware I needed to send proof.” A review of the record indicates Applicant was provided with the procedural rights set forth in Executive Order 10865 and the Directive, including an opportunity to respond to the government’s file of relevant material. Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights under the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 00-0593 at 4 (App. Bd. May 14, 2001). If they fail to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights, that failure to act does not constitute a denial of their rights. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-19896 at 6 (App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2003). 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. The Board does not review a case de novo. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board