CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05094.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-05094.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05094.a1

Nov 22, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance, which was ultimately denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on several procedural issues rather than the merits of the financial considerations themselves.

Specifically, the applicant's brief failed to assert harmful error, a necessary component for a successful appeal. Additionally, the brief included new evidence that had not been part of the original record and therefore could not be considered during the appeal process. A further procedural misstep was the applicant's failure to respond to the File of Relevant Material (FORM).

Due to these procedural deficiencies, particularly the lack of allegations of harmful error and the submission of new evidence, the appeal was denied, and the original decision to deny the security clearance was affirmed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Our scope of review is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 9, 2014
Answer filedSep 19, 2015
Hearing heldSep 19, 2016decision on the written record
Decision dateNov 22, 2016

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Alleged
Limitations on Considering New Evidence in Appeals
Importance of Responding to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) in Security Clearance Cases.

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 was filed by the Applicant after the denial of his security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, noting that the Applicant's brief did not assert any harmful error and included new evidence that was not permissible on appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowWilford H. Ross — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's brief contains no assertion of harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error in his appeal, and the appeal consisted largely of new evidence that could not be considered.

Appeal Board panel

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

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: Applicant’s brief contains no assertion of harmful error. It consists, in large part, of a compilation of matters from outside the record, including documents that post-date the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Our scope of review is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-05094.a1 DATE: 11/22/2016 DATE: November 22, 2016 In Re: ----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-05094

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 December 9, 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 September 19, 2016 after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s brief contains no assertion of harmful error.1 It consists, in large part, of a compilation of matters from outside the record, including documents that post-date the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Our scope of review is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not raised such an allegation, the decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed; James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed; William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 Applicant did not provide a response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM). His brief states that documents he submitted in September 2015, which was the date of his Answer to the SOR, did not contain sufficient information about his financial status. He states that this was due to a misunderstanding. However, in November 2015, Applicant received a copy of the FORM, accompanied by a DOHA cover letter. These documents advised Applicant of his right to make a documentary response to the FORM within 30 days of receipt. The cover letter in particular stated that Applicant could submit “any material you wish the Administrative Judge to consider[.]” Cover Letter, dated November 16, 2015, at 1. The FORM itself advised Applicant that his response could set forth “objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation as appropriate.” Applicant’s failure to make a response to the FORM cannot fairly be attributed to inadequate notice of his right to do so.