CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00287.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-00287.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00287.a1

Apr 3, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to insufficient evidence to mitigate financial concerns. The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F1.

The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge in the initial decision. Furthermore, the Board was prohibited from considering new evidence that the applicant attempted to introduce, as it was not part of the original record.

Ultimately, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the financial concerns raised in the Statement of Reasons, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 17, 2018
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJan 2, 2019Decision issued by Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason.
Decision dateApr 3, 2019Appeal decision affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Cite For

Prohibition Against Considering New Evidence on Appeal
Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Allegation
Burden on Applicant to Mitigate Financial Concerns 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 was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant's appeal did not raise any allegations of harmful error, leading the Board to affirm the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the appeal contained new evidence that could not be considered.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
Charles C. Hale

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’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents and assertions that are not in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-00287.a1 DATE: 04/03/2019 DATE: April 3, 2019 In Re: --------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-00287

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 17, 2018, 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 January 2, 2019, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents and assertions that are not in the record.1 The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In the decision , the Judge noted that certain documentation was missing from Applicant’s responses to the SOR and File of Relevant Material. On appeal, Applicant essentially contends such information was not requested from him. However, once the SOR allegations were admitted or proven, the burden was on Applicant to present evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns arising from those allegations. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. Although pro se applicants are not expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take timely and reasonable steps to exercise and protect their rights under the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-02371 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 30, 2014).

The Board does not review cases de novo. 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. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 1 Applicant contends that the information provided in his appeal brief “is not new to the case, it has just since been updated.” Appeal Brief at 1. Information not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06491 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 15, 2016).