A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

ISCR Case No. 18-01962.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Aug 29, 2019 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Reading

Workbench

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on admitted debts under Guideline F. The appeal was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate any error by the Judge and was responsible for mitigating the debts after admission.

Why the applicant was denied

Applicant admitted the alleged debts, which were the basis for the denial.
The applicant did not allege any error on the part of the Judge in his appeal.
The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal and affirmed the Judge's decision.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised

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 issued: 2018-08-15
Answer filed
Hearing held: 2019-06-26 Decision issued by Administrative Judge Robert Tuider.
Decision date: 2019-08-29 Appeal 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

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 Applicant did not raise any specific allegations of error in his appeal. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant admitted to the debts and did not provide evidence to mitigate them.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

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 ) )

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