CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-01253.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-01253.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-01253.a1

deniedJan 29, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The applicant appealed the denial, but the appeal was unsuccessful. The appeal authority noted that the applicant did not assert harmful error in the initial decision. Furthermore, new evidence presented by the applicant regarding debt reduction could not be considered during the appeal process.

Based on these factors, the appeal was denied, and the applicant's security clearance was ultimately DENIED.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not assert harmful error in the appeal.
New evidence regarding debt reduction was not considered on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“Our authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 22, 2014
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldNov 3, 2014Decision made by Judge Marc E. Curry.
Decision dateJan 29, 2015Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error
Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

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: Our authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-01253.a1 DATE: 01/29/2015 DATE: January 29, 2015 In Re: ----------- Applicant for Position of Trust ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 14-01253

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 trustworthiness designation. On May 22, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–trustworthiness 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 November 3, 2014, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error. Rather, it contains new evidence regarding his efforts at debt reduction. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. We do not review cases de novo. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 08-03372 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 5, 2009). Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a trustworthiness designation is AFFIRMED.1 Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 One of the documents that Applicant has attached to his brief appears to refer to a medical debt that was addressed in the record evidence. The Judge resolved this debt in Applicant’s favor. Applicant’s brief is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 13-00584 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 24, 2014).