A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-01094.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 9, 2019 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to a lack of documentary proof of participation in a repayment plan. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge and that new evidence could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant failed to provide documentary proof of participation in a repayment plan.
- The appeal did not raise any allegations of harmful error by the Judge.
- The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence not in the record.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“It is reasonable for Judges to expect applicants to present documentation that shows their efforts to resolve financial problems.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2018-05-08
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2019-02-28 Decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2019-04-09
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Documentary Evidence Under Guideline F
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Expectation of Documentation for Financial Problem Resolution
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
The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied their request for 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 Judge's decision.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it does contain a document that is not in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In this case, the Judge found that Applicant presented no documentary proof of participating in a repayment plan. As the Appeal Board has previously stated, it is reasonable for Judges to expect applicants to present documentation that shows their efforts to resolve financial problems. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-01094.a1 DATE: 04/09/2019 DATE: April 9, 2019 In Re: ----------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-01094
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, 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 February 28, 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 does contain a document that is not in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In this case, the Judge found that Applicant presented no documentary proof of participating in a repayment plan. As the Appeal Board has previously stated, it is reasonable for Judges to expect applicants to present documentation that shows their efforts to resolve financial problems. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-10310 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 30, 2008).
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