Loading case…

ISCR 14-04174.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2016) · CASE

ISCR Case 14-04174.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-04174.a1

deniedMay 27, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied eligibility for a public trust position due to trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed primarily from unpaid debts, with the applicant admitting to twenty-five of the thirty allegations detailed in the Statement of Reasons.

During the initial review, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the findings or the Administrative Judge's decision. Consequently, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial.

The Appeal Board emphasized that it does not review cases de novo and therefore could not consider new evidence presented by the applicant during the appeal process. The denial was upheld based on the evidence available at the time of the initial decision, which indicated unresolved financial issues.

Why the applicant was denied

Applicant admitted to twenty-five of the thirty allegations in the Statement of Reasons, primarily concerning unpaid debts.
The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to challenge the findings or the decision of the Administrative Judge.
The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence presented on appeal.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key rule quoted

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

Procedural posture

SOR issuedOct 3, 2014
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMar 24, 2016Decision made by Administrative Judge.
Decision dateMay 27, 2016Appeal affirmed.

Cite for

Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
The Inability to Consider New Evidence on Appeal
The Importance of Providing Evidence to Counter Allegations in Trustworthiness Cases

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: 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-04174.a1 DATE: 05/27/2016 DATE: May 27, 2016 In Re: ----- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 14-04174

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 eligibility for a public trust position. On October 3, 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 March 24, 2016, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi denied Applicant eligibility for a public trust position. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant admitted without explanation twenty-five of the thirty factual allegations in the SOR. Twenty-three of the allegations she admitted to were for unpaid debts. She requested that her case be decided on the written record and then did not file a response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). On appeal, Applicant offers new evidence in the form of a narrative statement describing her recollection of a 2013 discussion with an investigator regarding multiple job layoffs over a ten-year period, as well as an assertion that seven of the twenty-eight SOR debts are either duplicates or have been paid. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board