A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-06971.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 4, 2016 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The appeal was based on new evidence regarding debts, which was not considered, leading to a denial due to insufficient mitigating evidence regarding the applicant's financial situation.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's brief did not assert harmful error.
- New evidence regarding debts could not be considered on appeal.
- The judge found a lack of sufficient mitigating evidence regarding the applicant's financial situation.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- F3 The conditions that resulted in the financial difficulties were temporary and have been resolved or are being resolved.rejected
- F2 The applicant has a good track record of paying debts and has made efforts to resolve financial issues.rejected
Key rule quoted
“Our authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-06-15
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2016-07-12 Decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2016-10-04 Appeal decision affirmed.
Cite for
- Insufficient Mitigating Evidence Regarding Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Limitations on Considering New Evidence During an Appeal
- The Requirement to Assert Harmful Error for a Successful Appeal
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 regarding the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal and presented new evidence that was not permissible. The Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge.
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’s brief makes no assertion of harmful error. Rather, it contains new evidence about his automobile debt and another small debt. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-06971.a1 DATE: 10/04/2016 DATE: October 4, 2016 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-06971
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 June 15, 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 July 12, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s brief makes no assertion of harmful error. Rather, it contains new evidence about his automobile debt and another small debt. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Even if Applicant had made a timely submission of the things he includes in his brief, it would not likely have made a difference in the Judge’s overall decision, which relied on a paucity of mitigating evidence regarding Applicant’s financial situation as a whole. Our authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05468 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 9, 2016). Accordingly, the Judge’s Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board