A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-05468.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 9, 2016 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The appeal was based on new evidence regarding his financial situation, which was not considered as it was not available before the hearing, and the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge.
- New evidence submitted was not available before the hearing and could not be considered on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-01-07
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2016-03-30 Decision made by Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr.
- Decision date
- 2016-06-09 Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.
Cite for
- Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
- Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error
- Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
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 was filed by the Applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not raise any issue of harmful error, and new evidence submitted was not considered. The appeal was affirmed without reaching the merits.
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: Applicant did not raise an issue of harmful error. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-05468.a1 DATE: 06/09/2016 DATE: June 9, 2016 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-05468
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 January 7, 2015, 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 March 30, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr. denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a narrative statement detailing the current status of Applicant’s financial situation, and fifteen pages of documents that either postdate the Judge’s decision or were otherwise not contained in Applicant’s response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). Applicant describes his submission as “new evidence that was not available and took time to search for after the deadline of the hearing.” Applicant’s Brief at 2. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s 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: Catherine M. Engstrom Catherine M. Engstrom Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board