Loading case…

ISCR 16-01046: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2018) · CASE

ISCR Case 16-01046denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01046

Apr 11, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to admitted delinquent debts. The applicant acknowledged these debts but did not provide evidence of their resolution.

The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's original decision. This decision was based on information available at the time, and the Board could not consider new evidence or updated information presented by the applicant during the appeal process.

Despite the applicant's stated intention to reconcile the debts, the lack of demonstrated resolution and the procedural limitations on considering new evidence led to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's claims of intent to resolve debts were not sufficient to mitigate the disqualifying condition.

Key rule quoted

“Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural posture

SOR issuedJul 1, 2016
Answer filedAug 4, 2016Applicant admitted the debts.
Hearing heldJan 19, 2018Decision issued by Judge Claude R. Heiny.
Decision dateApr 11, 2018Appeal Board decision affirmed.

Cite for

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence
Rejection of Mitigating Conditions Based on Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Judge's decision but claimed the decision was based on outdated information and submitted new evidence. The Board affirmed the denial as the new evidence could not be considered and no harmful error was alleged.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowClaude R. Heiny denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant raised no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error and presented new evidence that could not be considered.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan (Chair)
Charles C. Hale
James F. Duffy

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: Applicant raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, he states the Judge’s decision was based on outdated information. His brief also provides a narrative statement about his efforts to resolve his debts and forwards a copy of a credit report that post-dates the Judge’s decision. These matters, however, constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-01046 DATE: 04/11/2018 DATE: April 11, 2018 In Re: ------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01046

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 July 1, 2016, 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 requested that the case be decided on the written record. On January 19, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In responding to the SOR on August 4, 2016, Applicant admitted the alleged delinquent debts, indicated that he fully intended to reconcile those debts, but also stated that he did not have extra money to devote to them. On September 14, 2016, Applicant received a copy of Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) and was advised that he had 30 days from its receipt to submit additional information. He did not submit a response to the FORM. In his appeal brief, Applicant raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, he states the Judge’s decision was based on outdated information. His brief also provides a narrative statement about his efforts to resolve his debts and forwards a copy of a credit report that post-dates the Judge’s decision. These matters, however, constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. See Directive E3.1.29. The Board does not review cases de novo. Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board