CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-03307.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-03307.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-03307.a1

May 7, 2007· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing themselves, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial concerns. The applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to corroborate claims of debt resolution, which was a key factor in the denial.

Specifically, the applicant did not submit adequate documentary evidence to support their assertions that various debts had been resolved. This lack of corroborating evidence was a primary disqualifying condition raised under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 19.

During the appeal process, the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Judge, which limited the scope of the Board's review. Consequently, the Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance, upholding the initial decision based on the insufficient evidence regarding debt resolution.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Although pro se applicants are not expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take reasonable and timely steps to preserve their rights.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 20, 2006
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision based on the written record.
Hearing heldDec 27, 2006
Decision dateMay 7, 2007

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence Regarding Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Pro Se Applicants' Expectations in Preserving Rights
Limitations on the Board's Review Authority Without Allegations of Harmful Error

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 based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed but did not assert any specific errors in the judge's decision, instead submitting new evidence that was not permissible on appeal. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not allege any harmful error and the appeal contained new evidence that could not be considered.

Appeal Board panel

Jean E. Smallin
William S. Fields
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 cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Although pro se applicants are not expected to act like lawyers, they are expected take reasonable and timely steps to preserve their rights. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 05-03307.a1 DATE: 05/07/2007 DATE: May 7, 2007 In Re: ------- SSN: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 05-03307

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 January 20, 2006, 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 the case be decided on the written record. On December 27, 2006, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Decision at 3. Applicant’s Appeal Brief at 1. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of a statement from Applicant and documentary exhibits which indicate that Applicant has paid off the debts listed in the SOR. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In this case, Applicant elected to have a decision based upon the written record. The Judge based his decision, in part, on the fact that Applicant had provided insufficient documentary evidence to corroborate his assertions that he had paid off, disputed, or otherwise resolved the debts at issue.1 The Board has previously noted that it is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present documentation about the satisfaction of specific debts. See ISCR Case No. 04-10671 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2006). In his brief, Applicant states “. . . I didn’t know I needed to provide evidence.” A review of the record indicates Applicant was provided with the procedural rights set forth in Executive Order 10865 and the Directive, including an opportunity to respond to the government’s file of relevant material. Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like a lawyer, they are expected to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights under the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 00-0593 at 4 (App. Bd. May 14, 2001). If they fail to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights, that failure to act does not constitute a denial of their rights. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-19896 at 6 (App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2003). 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board