A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-07892.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 7, 2011 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The Board denied the application due to the applicant's unresolved debts and the lack of authority to grant additional time for repayment. The decision was upheld as the applicant did not demonstrate harmful error by the Judge.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had unresolved debts that raised security concerns under Guideline F.
- The Board lacked the authority to grant the applicant additional time to address his debts.
- The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Judge in his appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“An applicant is not entitled to a delayed or deferred adjudication of his or her security eligibility.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2010-12-16
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2011-06-20
- Decision date
- 2011-09-07
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
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.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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