CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-04130.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-04130.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-04130.a1

Dec 11, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a failure to demonstrate timely submission of a response to a required form. The applicant, representing herself, did not provide evidence that she submitted the response within the allotted timeframe.

Further complicating the matter, attachments provided by the applicant post-dated both the cover letter and the judge's decision. This lack of timely submission and supporting documentation was a key factor in the denial.

The appeal affirmed the initial decision, as the applicant did not present evidence of timely submission or identify any harmful errors in the judge's original ruling. The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 24, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateDec 11, 2015

Cite For

Failure to Demonstrate Timely Submission of Evidence Under Guideline F
Jurisdiction Limitations Regarding New Evidence in Appeals
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Due to Lack of Harmful Error Claims

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. The applicant argued that her response to the FORM was not considered. The Board found no harmful error and affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed that her response to the FORM was not considered.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the AJ's decision as the Applicant failed to demonstrate that she submitted a timely response to the FORM and did not raise any other harmful errors.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealNo de-novo re-decisionHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

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 Applicant’s purported response to the FORM includes (and her cover letter discusses) three attachments that post-date the June 22, 2015, cover letter and one of which actually post-dates the Judge’s decision. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that she actually sent a response to the FORM within the time allotted. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-04130.a1 DATE: 12/11/2015 DATE: December 11, 2015 In Re: ------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-04130

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 October 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 October 30, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. As a preliminary matter, Applicant claims that she submitted a response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) that was not incorporated into the record. Her brief is accompanied by an apparent cover letter, dated June 22, 2015, addressing each debt, along with documents that are intended to corroborate her claims of debt resolution. The essence of Applicant’s appeal is that the letter and documents constitute her response to the FORM that was not examined by the Judge. Applicant’s submission constitutes new evidence, which we are generally precluded from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, we will consider new evidence insofar as it bears upon questions of due process or jurisdiction. See, e.g., ISCR Case No.14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015). The Applicant’s purported response to the FORM includes (and her cover letter discusses) three attachments that post-date the June 22, 2015, cover letter and one of which actually post-dates the Judge’s decision. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that she actually sent a response to the FORM within the time allotted. Applicant has not raised any other issue of harmful error by the Judge. Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged harmful error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Accordingly, the decision 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 E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board