CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-06839.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-06839.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-06839.a1

Apr 30, 2013· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to substantial delinquent debt. The total amount of the outstanding debt was approximately $47,010.

During the review process, the applicant claimed to have resolved some of these debts. However, he failed to provide any documentary evidence or corroborating information to support these claims of resolution.

Consequently, the appeal board affirmed the denial, finding no basis to remand the case given the lack of substantiating evidence for the claimed debt resolutions. The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Under such circumstances, the Board finds no reason to remand the case.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 5, 2012
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldJan 30, 2013Record closed after hearing.
Decision dateApr 30, 2013Appeal board affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Corroborating Evidence for Debt Resolution
Substantial Delinquent Debt as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline F
No Grounds for Remand When No Corroborating Evidence Is Presented.

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 a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued for a remand to consider additional documents he claimed to have submitted. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no basis for remand as the Applicant did not provide evidence to support his claim.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

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

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed that he submitted additional documents for the Judge’s consideration.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no reason to remand the case as the Applicant did not provide corroborating evidence for his claim of submitting additional documents. The Judge's decision was based on substantial evidence regarding the Applicant's financial issues.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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 offered nothing to corroborate his claim that he submitted additional documents for the Judge’s consideration. Under such circumstances, the Board finds no reason to remand the case. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 11-06839.a1 DATE: 04/30/2013 DATE: April 30, 2013 In Re: ---------------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-06839

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 June 5, 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 requested a hearing. On January 30, 2013, after the close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 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 raises the following issue on appeal: whether there are grounds for ordering a remand to allow the Judge to consider documents Applicant claims he submitted. For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable security clearance decision. The Judge found that Applicant has substantial delinquent debt. The 31 debts in the SOR, which range from $38 to $8,805, amount to approximately $47,010. Applicant asserts that he had paid many of them, and was working on a settlement for others. Applicant submitted no documentary evidence regarding any of the admitted debts, nor did he submit any materials regarding refuted accounts. The Judge concluded that a serious automobile accident and related recuperative time in 2007-2008 was a source of financial distress and contributed to Applicant’s financial problems. However, while it was Applicant’s position that he paid the majority of debts at issue, there was no documentary evidence showing that any of the debts had been paid, put into repayment, disputed, or otherwise addressed. Without such documentary evidence, it could not be concluded that significant progress has been made on the debts at issue. The Judge denied Applicant a security clearance. Applicant does not claim error on the part of the Judge. He does assert that he mailed documents to Department Counsel after the hearing, and had the Judge considered those documents, he would have ruled in Applicant’s favor. Applicant submitted eleven documents with his appeal brief, which implicitly are the same documents he states he submitted earlier. However, two of the documents are dated March 4, 2013, which is after the date of the Judge’s decision and could not have been part of a purported timely submission. The Judge’s decision contains a narrative of events concerning the receipt of post-hearing documents from Applicant, some of which are corroborated by the hearing transcript, and some of which are corroborated by a series of e-mails between Applicant and Department Counsel placed in the blue administrative folder portion of the case file. Applicant offered no documents at the hearing. He was given until November 8, 2012 to submit materials for consideration. On November 8, 2012, Applicant requested an extension of time, and was granted an extension until November 20, 2012. A second extension was granted giving Applicant until November 26, 2012. On December 3, 2012, Applicant contacted Department Counsel to inquire as to whether she had received materials he stated were mailed on November 26, 2012. Department Counsel responded that no materials had been received. She subsequently advised Applicant that no materials had been received as of December 11, 2012. On January 7, 2013, the Judge learned from Department Counsel that no mailing had ever been received from Applicant, and that there had been no contact with Applicant since December 7, 2012. The Judge then closed the record. We have, in the past, remanded cases to the appropriate Judges for consideration of documents that applicants had submitted but which were not incorporated into the records. However, a review of the decision, the record, and Applicant’s brief and attachments does not present an adequate basis to remand the case. Compare, e.g., ADP Case No. 09-02670 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan 20, 2011). Furthermore, in this case, Applicant has offered nothing to corroborate his claim that he had submitted additional documents. Under such circumstances, the Board finds no reason to remand the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-09433 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 2, 2012). The eleven documents attached to Applicant’s appeal brief will not be considered, as they constitute new evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

ORDER

The decision of the Judge 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board