CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05468.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-05468.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05468.a1

Jun 9, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on disqualifying conditions raised in AG ¶ 20.

The applicant appealed the decision, submitting new evidence related to his financial situation. However, this evidence was not considered during the appeal because it was not available prior to the initial hearing. The applicant also did not assert that the judge made any harmful error in the original decision.

Given these factors, the appeal was unsuccessful, and the security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 7, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 30, 2016Decision made by Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr.
Decision dateJun 9, 2016Appeal 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and submitted new evidence that was not considered. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not raise an issue of harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal and does not review cases de novo.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Catherine M. Engstrom
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 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

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 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