CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-08831.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-08831.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-08831.a1

Apr 1, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal was denied because the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision.

The applicant had raised a disqualifying condition under AG ¶ 20. However, new evidence submitted by the applicant during the appeal process was not considered, as it was provided after the record had officially closed.

Ultimately, the applicant's appeal was denied, upholding the original decision to deny the security clearance based on financial considerations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 24, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 28, 2016Decision made by Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr.
Decision dateApr 1, 2016Appeal decision affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on New Evidence Submission During Appeal
Affirmation of Lower Court Decision Without Harmful Error Allegations

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no allegation of harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board cannot consider new evidence submitted after the record was closed.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
William S. Fields

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 has made no allegation of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 12-08831.a1 DATE: 04/01/2016 DATE: April 1, 2016 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-08831

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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 November 24, 2014, 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 28, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr. denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, his submission contains new evidence in the form of releases of tax liens that are dated subsequent to the close of the record in the case.1 The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, the Board does not review a case 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 Applicant asks that we distinguish his documents by calling them “newly acquired” evidence. If the evidence was not before the Judge, it is new evidence.