A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 12-08831.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 1, 2016 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge, and new evidence submitted was not considered since it was provided after the record closed.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge.
- New evidence submitted was not considered as it was after the record closed.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2014-11-24
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2016-01-28 Decision made by Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr.
- Decision date
- 2016-04-01 Appeal 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
The appeal was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the decision of the Judge.
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 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
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.