A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 11-10676.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 6, 2013 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced financial concerns under Guideline F due to acknowledged debts. Despite claiming responsibility and trustworthiness, the appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge, and new evidence was not considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant acknowledged debts but did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate financial concerns.
- The appeal did not assert harmful error by the judge, limiting the Board's review.
- New evidence submitted by the applicant was not considered as the Board does not review cases de novo.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F3 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
Mitigating
- F2 The conditions that resulted in the financial difficulties were largely beyond the person's controlrejected
- F3 The person has a good track record of financial responsibilityrejected
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2012-12-03
- Answer filed
- Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2013-06-13
- Decision date
- 2013-08-06
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
- Limitations on the Board's Review 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
The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the denial of his security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error. The Board's review was limited to the record below, and new evidence submitted by the Applicant was not considered.
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: The Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 11-10676.a1 DATE: 08/06/2013 DATE: August 6, 2013 In Re: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-10676
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 3, 2012, DoD 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 elected to have his case decided on the written record. On June 13, 2013, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean 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 his understanding that access to classified information is a fiduciary relationship with the Government, and acknowledges that he has some debts. He indicates that he is responsible and trustworthy and is protective of classified information. He states that he and his wife will take care of all their financial debts, and that their payments on a Chapter 13 bankruptcy are now up to date. Applicant lists the creditors to be paid under the Chapter 13 Plan and states that he has established payment plans with the IRS and the state tax board. Applicant’s assertions are not contained in the record below, and a document submitted with his brief is also not contained in the record below.
The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, 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