CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-10676.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-10676.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-10676.a1

Aug 6, 2013· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to acknowledged debts. The decision cited Disqualifying Condition F3, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations.

While the applicant claimed responsibility and trustworthiness, the appeal was ultimately denied because he did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns. The Board also noted that the appeal did not assert harmful error by the judge, which limited the scope of their review.

Furthermore, new evidence submitted by the applicant was not considered, as the Board does not review cases de novo. Mitigating conditions F2 and F3 were applied, but they were insufficient to overcome the financial concerns, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's claims of responsibility and trustworthiness were not substantiated with evidence.
F3rejectedThe Person Has a Good Track Record of Financial ResponsibilityThe applicant's financial history did not demonstrate sufficient responsibility to mitigate concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 3, 2012
Answer filed—Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing heldJun 13, 2013
Decision dateAug 6, 2013

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the applicant after the denial of his security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowThomas M. Crean — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant made no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error and the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

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 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

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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