CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-01962.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-01962.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01962.a1

Aug 29, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from admitted debts, which formed the basis of the Judge's initial decision.

The applicant appealed the denial but failed to demonstrate any error by the Judge. The appeal board noted that the applicant was responsible for mitigating the admitted debts and that new evidence could not be introduced during the appeal process.

Consequently, the appeal board affirmed the Judge's original decision, and the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo. Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 15, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 26, 2019Decision issued by Administrative Judge Robert Tuider.
Decision dateAug 29, 2019Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Responsibility for Mitigating Admitted Debts Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Board's Authority on Appeal
No New Evidence Consideration on Appeal

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 his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not raise any allegations of error and admitted to the debts, which he was responsible for mitigating. The Board also stated it could not consider new evidence on appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Tuider — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant raised no allegation of 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 admitted to the debts in question, thus failing to provide evidence to mitigate them.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael 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 E; Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. In responding the SOR, Applicant admitted the alleged debts. On appeal, he contends Department Counsel neglected to investigate his claims about them. However, once Applicant admitted the debts, he was responsible for presenting evidence to mitigate them. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. In his appeal brief, he now provides creditor contact information so that the status of the debts can be verified. The Board has no authority to interview witnesses, conduct investigations, or make findings of fact. Furthermore, the Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-01962.a1 DATE: 08/29/2019 DATE: August 29, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-01962 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

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 August 15, 2018, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On June 26, 2019, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Robert Tuider denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the Guideline E allegation and against him on the Guideline F allegations. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. In responding the SOR, Applicant admitted the alleged debts. On appeal, he contends Department Counsel neglected to investigate his claims about them. However, once Applicant admitted the debts, he was responsible for presenting evidence to mitigate them. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. In his appeal brief, he now provides creditor contact information so that the status of the debts can be verified. The Board has no authority to interview witnesses, conduct investigations, or make findings of fact. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-03072 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2018). Furthermore, the Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review cases de novo. Our 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.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael 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