CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-03757.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-03757.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-03757.a1

Sep 13, 2011· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to an outstanding debt of $12,386. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant failed to demonstrate harmful error by the Judge in the initial decision.

The Board specifically noted that the adverse impact of the denial on the applicant's employment was not a relevant factor in their review. While Disqualifying Condition F.1 was raised, Mitigating Condition F.2 was applied. However, the applicant did not successfully argue that the Judge made a harmful error, leading to the final decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

F.2rejectedInability to PayThe applicant's claims regarding the debt were not sufficient to establish a mitigating condition.

Key Rule Quoted

“The adverse impact an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not deemed a relevant consideration in evaluating his clearance eligibility.”
— ISCR Case No. 08-11222 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2009)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 1, 2010
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldJul 5, 2011
Decision dateSep 13, 2011

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Relevance of Adverse Employment Impact in Clearance Decisions
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error in Appeal Cases

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 Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not allege any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any 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. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, which were not presented in this case.

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
James E. Moody
William S. Fields

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 has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed CASENO: 10-03757.a1 DATE: 09/13/2011 DATE: September 13, 2011 In Re: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-03757

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 September 1, 2010, 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 a hearing. On July 5, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant devotes most of his brief to arguing that he is not responsible for the $12,386 unpaid debt alleged in SOR paragraph 1.n. He states that he has thoroughly investigated the matter, and the company in question has no record of him owing them any money. He surmises that the debt may actually be owed by a different individual with a similar name. Some of Applicant’s assertions in this regard constitute new evidence which the Board cannot consider on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, the thrust of his argument corresponds to his representations at the hearing, and in his decision the Judge found in Applicant’s favor with respect to that factual allegation. Accordingly, Applicant’s representations on this issue do not constitute an assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. In the balance of his brief, Applicant states that if he does not receive a clearance, he will not be able to start his job and pay off the remainder of his debts. The Board has previously noted that the adverse impact an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not deemed a relevant consideration in evaluating his clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-11222 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2009). Applicant also states that his company has not paid him for services which he has already rendered, and requests the Board’s assistance in securing his back wages. The Board has no jurisdiction with respect to such matters. 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 on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board