CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-07892.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-07892.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-07892.a1

Sep 7, 2011· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unresolved debts. The Board determined these debts raised security concerns and noted its lack of authority to grant additional time for the applicant to address them.

The applicant appealed the decision but did not assert any harmful error by the Judge. Consequently, the Board upheld the denial, finding no basis to overturn the initial decision. The application was ultimately denied based on the applicant's outstanding financial obligations and the procedural limitations of the Board.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“An applicant is not entitled to a delayed or deferred adjudication of his or her security eligibility.”
— ISCR Case No. 09-02926 at 2 (App. Bd. May 11, 2010)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 16, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 20, 2011
Decision dateSep 7, 2011

Cite For

Authority of the Board to Deny Requests for Additional Time to Resolve Debts
Limitations on the Board's Review of New Evidence on Appeal
The Requirement for Applicants to Assert Harmful Error for Successful Appeals

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 involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant requested more time to address his debts but did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made 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 assert any harmful error and requested relief that the Board does not have the authority to grant.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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 DIGEST: Applicant requests the Board give him more time to address his debts. The Board does not have that authority. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-07892.a1 DATE: 09/07/2011 DATE: September 7, 2011 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-07892

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 December 16, 2010, 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 a hearing. On June 20, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Applicant requests that the Board give him more time (until the end of the year) to pay off his remaining debts. Applicant is requesting relief that the Board has no authority to grant. See ISCR Case No. 10-00983 at 1-2 (App. Bd. May 17, 2011). In essence, Applicant is seeking a continuance to allow him to develop additional favorable evidence. An applicant is not entitled to a delayed or deferred adjudication of his or her security eligibility. See ISCR Case No. 09-02926 at 2 (App. Bd. May 11, 2010). In making his request, Applicant makes factual assertions about anticipated post- hearing developments which he states support the eventual granting of his security clearance. However, the Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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. The Board does not review cases de novo. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board