CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-13724.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-13724.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-13724.a1

Feb 14, 2014· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved delinquent debts. The Department of Defense initially denied the application, citing Disqualifying Condition F1.

The applicant appealed this decision, but the appeal board affirmed the denial. The board noted that the applicant failed to provide documentation for four of the five delinquent debts listed in the Statement of Reasons (SOR). Furthermore, the board found no evidence to substantiate the applicant's claims regarding a phone conversation about document submission.

Crucially, the appeal board emphasized that it cannot consider new evidence presented during the appeal process. As a result, the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate harmful error regarding the debts led to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 8, 2013
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldNov 15, 2013Decision made by Administrative Judge Mark Harvey.
Decision dateFeb 14, 2014Appeal affirmed by the board.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal
Requirements for Demonstrating Harmful Error in Security Clearance 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the applicant after the Department of Defense denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the judge overlooked evidence regarding his debts. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant disputes the Judge’s assertion that he did not submit documentation regarding five of the largest delinquent debts cited in the SOR.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claims harmful error due to the lack of consideration of submitted evidence.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not demonstrate harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence review

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 11-13724.a1 DATE: 02/14/2014 DATE: February 14, 2014 In Re: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-13724

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 May 8, 2013, 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 decision on the written record. On November 15, 2013, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Mark Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant disputes the Judge’s assertion that he did not submit documentation regarding five of the largest delinquent debts cited in the SOR. Applicant is correct that the record contains a document on one of these five debts. However, there is nothing in the record evidence concerning the other four. Applicant’s brief refers to a letter that he mailed that purportedly contained information about the other four debts. There is no information provided about this letter, when it was sent, or to whom it was sent, or what relationship it had, if any, to the materials Applicant submitted in response to the Government’s File of Relevant Material. There is no presumption of error below. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-08312 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 14, 2005). Without more, the Board cannot conclude that Applicant has demonstrated harmful error. There is no evidence in the record to support Applicant’s claims regarding a phone conversation between his wife and (apparently) a DoD employee, wherein submission of documents was discussed. Department Counsel’s reply does not address the issue. Additionally, Applicant’s brief contains a request to submit new evidence concerning the disposition of certain of his debts. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

ORDER

The Decision 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board