CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-09072.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-09072.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-09072.a1

Dec 8, 2011· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition F.1, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations.

While Mitigating Conditions F.2 and F.3 were considered, suggesting the debt was not caused by irresponsibility and that the applicant had initiated efforts to resolve it, these were not sufficient to overcome the disqualifying factors. The applicant's appeal was subsequently denied.

The denial of the appeal was based on several factors: the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision, and the Board was unable to consider new evidence presented during the appeal process. Ultimately, the presence of some mitigating evidence did not compel a favorable decision, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's argument regarding mitigating conditions was insufficient to demonstrate that the Judge erred.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Repay DebtsThe applicant's new evidence did not demonstrate harmful error.

Key Rule Quoted

“The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision.”
— ISCR Case No. 09-07139 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2011)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 14, 2011
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldSep 23, 2011Decision made by Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro.
Decision dateDec 8, 2011Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Authority Regarding New Evidence
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in 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 was from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Board affirmed the decision, stating it could not consider new evidence presented on appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowHenry Lazzaro — 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 harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal, and the presence of some mitigating evidence does not compel a favorable decision.

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 did not assert harmful error by the Judge. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 10-09072.a1 DATE: 12/08/2011 DATE: December 8, 2011 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-09072

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 14, 2011, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On September 23, 2011, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro 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 contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge, based on the record that was before him. Rather, it contains a combination of record evidence and new

FOOTNOTES

1 To the extent that Applicant’s brief could be construed as arguing that the record evidence would support a favorable application of the mitigating conditions, such an argument is insufficient to demonstrate that the Judge erred. The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-07139 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2011). evidence, in the form of documents dated subsequent to the Judge’s decision, showing Applicant’s payment of specific debts. Applicant states that she prepared her reply in response to the Judge’s adverse decision, and that the newly proffered documents demonstrate that the Judge erred in reaching his decision. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.1 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