A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-04130.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Dec 11, 2015 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to failure to demonstrate timely submission of a response to the FORM. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not provide evidence of timely submission and did not raise any harmful errors in the judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant failed to demonstrate that she submitted a response to the FORM within the time allotted.
- The attachments submitted by the applicant post-dated the cover letter and the judge's decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2014-10-24
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- Decision date
- 2015-12-11
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
The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that her response to the FORM was not considered. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's ruling.
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 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
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