CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-04398.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-04398.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-04398.a1

Jun 18, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal was based on the applicant's assertion of harmful error in the judge's evaluation of evidence related to disqualifying condition AG ¶ 20.

The Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's assessment of the evidence presented. The Board also noted its lack of authority to remand cases for the introduction of new evidence without a prior showing of error in the initial decision.

Consequently, the Board upheld the original decision to deny the security clearance, as the applicant did not meet the burden of proving a reversible error in the judge's findings.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Our authority to review cases is limited to those in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 30, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 2, 2015
Decision dateJun 18, 2015

Cite For

Authority of the Board to Review Cases Limited to Harmful Error
Denial of Remand for New Evidence
Evaluation of Evidence by the Judge Presumed Correct Unless Shown Otherwise

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 appealed, requesting a new hearing to present additional evidence. The Board affirmed the denial, stating it lacked authority to remand for new evidence and found no specific harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant argued for a new hearing to present additional evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not raise a specific harmful error and the request for a new hearing was outside the Board's authority.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

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 Board has no authority to remand a case simply to take in new evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-04398.a1 DATE: 06/18/2015 DATE: June 18, 2015 In Re: ------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-04398

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 September 30, 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 hearing. On April 2, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief requests a new hearing “so that the records can be set straight.” We have no authority to remand a case for a new hearing simply for the purpose of taking in new evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00976 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 5, 2015). Our authority to review cases is limited to those in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error. To the extent that Applicant is arguing that the Judge either mis-weighed the evidence or failed to consider all of the evidence in the record, the argument fails for lack of specificity. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-06067 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 22, 2010). Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-06438 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2009). 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