CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-09748.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-09748.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-09748.a1

Mar 2, 2012· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

This case concerns an applicant who was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The applicant, representing himself, appealed the initial denial, asserting a willingness to pay outstanding debts.

However, the appeal did not claim any harmful error in the judge's original decision. The disqualifying condition F.1 was raised, while mitigating conditions F.2 and F.3 were considered.

Ultimately, the appeal board affirmed the denial of the security clearance. The board found that the applicant's stated willingness to pay debts was insufficient to mitigate the financial concerns, especially in the absence of any asserted harmful error in the initial ruling.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Led to the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 9, 2011
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldDec 30, 2011Decision made by Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran.
Decision dateMar 2, 2012Appeal 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an Applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant appealed the decision but did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance as there were no claims of harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of 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 in the appeal. The appeal was based solely on the Applicant's willingness to pay debts if it would lead to a security clearance, which does not constitute a harmful error claim.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
James E. Moody

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: 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

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 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