CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-03799.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-03799.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03799.a1

Aug 30, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Appeal Board upheld this denial.

The Board's decision was based on the applicant's failure to assert any harmful error in his appeal. Additionally, the applicant presented new evidence during the appeal process, which the Appeal Board was unable to consider as part of its review.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied due to the unresolved financial concerns and the procedural issues raised during the appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review a case de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 20, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 14, 2016
Decision dateAug 30, 2016

Cite For

Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error
Upholding of Financial Considerations Denials

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 was filed by the applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision of the Judge as the applicant did not raise any issue of harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowElizabeth M. Matchinski — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not raise an issue of harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Applicant did not raise an issue of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
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 F DIGEST: The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Applicant did not raise an issue of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-03799.a1 DATE: 08/30/2016 DATE: August 30, 2016 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-03799

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 May 20, 2015, 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 hearing. On June 14, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski 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, it contains Applicant’s statements that he received a refund after refiling a tax return, resolved some unspecified debts, and can now show he is not getting further into debt. His assertions constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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 Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board