A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-03799.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 30, 2016 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The Appeal Board upheld the denial, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error and presented new evidence that could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the appeal.
- The new evidence presented by the applicant could not be considered by the Appeal Board.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review a case de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-05-20
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2016-06-14
- Decision date
- 2016-08-30
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
The appeal was filed by the applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as the applicant's statements constituted new evidence that could not be considered.
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: 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
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