A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-09748.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 2, 2012 · 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 appeal was based on the applicant's willingness to pay debts but did not assert any harmful error in the judge's decision. The appeal board affirmed the denial due to the lack of harmful error claims.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision.
- The applicant's willingness to pay debts was insufficient to overcome the financial concerns raised.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
Mitigating
- F.2 The conditions that led to the financial difficulties were largely beyond the person's controlrejected
- F.3 The person has initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debtsrejected
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2011-08-09
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2011-12-30 Decision made by Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran.
- Decision date
- 2012-03-02 Appeal affirmed by the board.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Lack of Harmful Error Assertion as a Basis for Appeal
- Insufficient Evidence of Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts
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 was regarding the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge and stated a willingness to pay debts if it would lead to a security clearance. The Board affirmed the adverse decision.
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: On appeal Applicant states that he will pay his debts if by doing so he will receive a security clearance Adverse decision affirmed CASENO: 10-09748.a1 DATE: 03/02/2012 DATE: March 2, 2012 In Re: -------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-09748
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 August 9, 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 a decision on the written record. On December 30, 2011, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error by the Judge. The brief states that Applicant will pay two of the three debts which the Judge found against him if, by doing so, he will receive a security clearance. Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29; see also ISCR Case No. 10-09349 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 12, 2011). Therefore, the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board