Loading case…

ISCR 11-04339: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2013) · CASE

ISCR Case 11-04339denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-04339

Feb 13, 2013· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Appeal Board affirmed this denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the administrative judge in the initial decision.

The Board's review was limited to the record established during the initial hearing. New evidence submitted by the applicant during the appeal process could not be considered, as appellate review is restricted to determining if the judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Given the absence of alleged harmful error and the inability to consider new information, the Appeal Board upheld the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key rule quoted

“The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.”
Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural posture

SOR issuedJul 19, 2012
Answer filed—Applicant elected to have his case decided on the written record.
Hearing heldNov 23, 2012Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher.
Decision dateFeb 13, 2013Appeal Board affirmed the denial.

Cite for

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Authority Regarding New Evidence
Requirement for Alleging Harmful Error for Appeal Consideration

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 for a security clearance after the Administrative Judge denied the request based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The Board affirmed the decision of the Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher 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 allege harmful error by 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 the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan (Chair)
Jeffrey D. Billett
Jean E. Smallin

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 did not alleged harmful error by the Judge. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 11-04339 DATE: 02/13/2013 DATE: February 13, 2013 In Re: --------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-04339

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 July 19, 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 November 23, 2012, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher 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 submitted materials with his brief that reflect efforts he is making to resolve his outstanding debt. Applicant also made assertions concerning correspondence he has had with creditors and a court, further detailing those efforts. A number of the written documents submitted on appeal and some of the representations made by Applicant on appeal are 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board