CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-07091.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-07091.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-07091.a1

Aug 11, 2010· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a failure to provide necessary documentation regarding financial obligations. The denial was based on the applicant's inability to provide evidence of debt repayment or a concrete repayment plan.

Furthermore, the applicant did not offer an explanation for his failure to submit the requested documentation when given the opportunity to do so. These issues raised disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20.

The initial denial was affirmed on appeal, as the applicant did not demonstrate that the judge made a harmful error. This outcome underscored the critical importance of timely and complete evidence submission in security clearance proceedings.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 28, 2009
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision based on the written record.
Hearing heldMay 17, 2010Decision made by Administrative Judge Shari Dam.
Decision dateAug 11, 2010Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Importance of Timely Evidence Submission in Security Clearance Cases
Expectation for Applicants to Present Documentation Regarding Debts
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence on Appeal.

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 under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and requested to submit additional evidence post-decision. The Board affirmed the denial as the applicant did not provide sufficient justification for not submitting the evidence earlier.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains 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 failed to provide evidence to support his claims regarding financial considerations.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

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: Applicant fails to explain why he submit documentation he now references when given an opportunity to do so. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-07091.a1 DATE: 08/11/2010 DATE: August 11, 2010 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-07091

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 October 28, 2009, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On May 17, 2010, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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 contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, Applicant asks the Board to reverse the Judge’s decision and give him an opportunity to send in additional evidence including leave and earnings statements, pay stubs, evidence of debt payment, and character reference letters, which he believes would be sufficient to change the outcome of the case. In this case, Applicant elected to have a decision based upon the written record, and then responded to the government’s file of relevant material (FORM) with two items of documentary evidence. The Judge based her decision, in part, on the fact that: “[Applicant] did not provide evidence that he paid, attempted to pay, or establish a repayment plan for any debt . . .” Decision at 5. 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). 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. Applicant’s brief contains no explanation as to why he did not submit the documentation which he now references when given an opportunity to due so. Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, 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 Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Nor does it review cases de novo. 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