CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-24458.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-24458.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-24458.a1

Jan 14, 2008· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 16 unpaid debts. The initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition F.3, indicating significant financial concerns.

The applicant appealed the denial, but the appeal was unsuccessful. The Board determined that the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Furthermore, the Board could not consider new evidence presented during the appeal, specifically the applicant's claims of having subsequently paid off some of the outstanding debts.

The adverse impact of the denial on the applicant was not considered relevant to the security eligibility determination. Consequently, the appeal was denied, and the applicant's security clearance was not granted.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The adverse impact of an unfavorable decision is not a relevant or material consideration in evaluating security eligibility.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 2, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 6, 2007
Decision dateJan 14, 2008

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Multiple Unpaid Debts Under Guideline F
Limitations on the Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence on Appeal
Relevance of Adverse Impact of Decision Not Considered in Security Eligibility Evaluations

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not assert any harmful error and that new evidence could not be considered on appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMichael H. Leonard — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the adverse impact of an unfavorable decision is not a relevant consideration in evaluating security eligibility.

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
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 adverse impact of an unfavorable decision is not a relevant or material consideration in evaluating security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-24458.a1 DATE: 01/14/2008 DATE: January 14, 2008 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-24458

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 April 2, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of The Judge entered Formal Findings in favor of Applicant as to Guideline F. However, it is clear from the text of the decision that the Judge found against Applicant. The SOR alleged that Applicant had 16 unpaid debts. His statement on appeal does not specifically identify which three of those debts he is referring to as having been subsequently paid off. Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On September 6, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1 Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence, in the form of a statement from the Applicant, which updates his financial situation and indicates that since the hearing he has paid off “three of [his] biggest debts.”2 Applicant also requests that the Board grant him a clearance based upon the favorable evidence in the case including his 21 years of honorable service in the Navy. In the alternative he asks that the Board give him a year to pay off his debts. In support of his requests Applicant states that without his clearance he will be unable to work and get his debts paid off. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. It does not review cases de novo. Nor does it have authority to grant a clearance on a conditional or probationary basis. See ISCR Case No. 04-04302 at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 30, 2005); ISCR Case No. 02- 23805 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2005). Finally, the adverse impact an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not deemed a relevant or material consideration in evaluating his security eligibility. See ISCR Case No. 03-21012 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2005); ISCR Case No. 03-19002 at 4 (App. Bd. May 5, 2005). 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, 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