CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-00533.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-00533.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-00533.a1

Apr 26, 2012· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved tax debts. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's original decision.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's significant financial issues, specifically outstanding tax debts, which raised security concerns. A key factor in the decision was the applicant's failure to provide corroborating evidence for his claims of progress in resolving these financial obligations.

Ultimately, the lack of resolution for the tax debts and the absence of supporting documentation for his efforts to address them led to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 1, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 13, 2012
Decision dateApr 26, 2012

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Importance of 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 applicant appealed the denial of his security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in his appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the appeal. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, and since none were presented, the original decision stands.

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: The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 11-00533.a1 DATE: 04/26/2012 DATE: April 26, 2012 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-00533

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 September 1, 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 hearing. On February 13, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr. 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. He states simply that he is appealing the Judge’s decision and he makes reference to his favorable security history, the progress he is making in paying back taxes owed the IRS1, and the fact that losing his clearance would take away his current livelihood. 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 The Judge’s decision notes that the record contains no corroboration for such claims.