CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-03198.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-03198.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-03198.a1

Mar 5, 2010· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance was denied to an applicant representing herself, primarily under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from delinquent debts exceeding $1,000, specifically citing Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15.

During the hearing, the applicant failed to provide corroborating evidence for her claims regarding these debts. The judge particularly noted the absence of corroboration for the applicant's largest debt, which constituted 65% of her total listed debts.

The applicant's subsequent appeal did not assert any harmful error by the judge. Consequently, due to the lack of corroboration for the financial issues, the appeal was denied, and the security clearance was not granted.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 16, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 12, 2010
Decision dateMar 5, 2010

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Lack of Corroboration for Financial Claims
Importance of Providing Evidence During Hearings
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Asserted on Appeal

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 an adverse decision denying the applicant a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error, and the Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains no substantive matters and makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not allege any harmful error and referenced evidence not part of the record.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

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

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 cites to evidence that was not part of the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-03198.a1 DATE: 03/05/2010 DATE: March 5, 2010 In Re: ----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-03198

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 June 16, 2009, DOHA 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 hearing. On January 12, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no substantive matters and makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Additionally, Applicant’s appeal submission makes reference to matters that were not part of the record below. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Concurring opinion of Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra’anan The Judge did not err. However, the posture of the case is somewhat unusual, and I am not sanguine about affirming the result without comment. The SOR alleged only two delinquent debts in excess of $1,000: one for about $4,000 and one for about $14,000. Applicant was pro se and clearly not familiar with legal procedures. She reported at the hearing that the alleged $14,000 was not a debt and was just an error. She did not bring any corroboration to the hearing. The Judge left the record open but Applicant did not supply the corroboration by the close of the record. Accordingly, the Judge, in her Whole Person Analysis focused on the absence of corroboration for Applicant’s claims on her largest debt “representing 65% of her listed debts” (Decision page 8) and reached an adverse result. On appeal Applicant reports that she sought corroboration before close of the record but that it did not arrive until after the close of the record (although before the Judge issued her decision). If Applicant’s corroboration would really support her claim, then I am not sure that her actual delinquent debts would have raised security concerns, and I suspect the Judge might have analyzed the case differently. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board