CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-01094.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-01094.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01094.a1

Apr 9, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. Specifically, the denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to provide documentary proof of participation in a repayment plan for a debt identified under AG ¶ 20.

Upon appeal, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. The Board noted that the applicant did not allege any harmful error committed by the Administrative Judge during the initial proceedings. Furthermore, the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence that was not part of the original record.

Consequently, without the necessary documentation to mitigate the financial concerns, and with no procedural errors alleged or new evidence admissible on appeal, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“It is reasonable for Judges to expect applicants to present documentation that shows their efforts to resolve financial problems.”
— ISCR Case No. 07-10310 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 30, 2008)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 8, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 28, 2019Decision on the written record.
Decision dateApr 9, 2019

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

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 raised no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board is prohibited from considering new evidence.

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 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

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, 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