CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05934.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-05934.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05934.a1

Sep 23, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to eight delinquent debts totaling approximately $20,000. These debts included significant student loans.

The applicant asserted that he had repaid these debts; however, he failed to provide corroborating evidence to support these claims. The appeal board affirmed the adverse decision, noting that new documents submitted by the applicant at the appeal stage were not considered as they were not part of the original record.

The denial was based on the applicant's substantial delinquent debt and the absence of verifiable proof of repayment, aligning with Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“With his brief, Applicant submitted new evidence that the Board may not consider.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 5, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJun 27, 2016Decision made by Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone.
Decision dateSep 23, 2016Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Corroborating Evidence for Financial Claims
Limitations on New Evidence Submission During Appeal
Criteria for Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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, representing himself, argued that the Judge erred in the decision. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the record.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged that the Judge erred in denying his security clearance.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was sustainable on the record and that Applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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: With his brief, Applicant submitted new evidence that the Board may not consider. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-05934.a1 DATE: 09/23/2016 DATE: September 23, 2016 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-05934

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 April 5, 2015, 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 June 27, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had eight delinquent debts totaling about $20,000. Six of those debts were student loans totaling about $12,000. The Judge found against Applicant on all the debts. In the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant claimed in his SOR response that he was paying the student loans and had resolved the two other debts. The Judge noted that Applicant did not submit any corroborating evidence to support his claims. In his appeal brief, Applicant presented documents that were not part of the record before the Judge. These documents constitute new evidence that the Board can neither receive nor consider. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant has not shown that the Judge committed any harmful error. The Judge’s decision is sustainable on the record.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board