CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-06971.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-06971.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-06971.a1

Oct 4, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application was denied under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The applicant, representing himself, appealed the initial denial, but the appeal was unsuccessful.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F1, which addresses financial irresponsibility. While Mitigating Conditions F2 and F3 were considered, the judge ultimately found insufficient evidence to mitigate the applicant's financial situation. The applicant's appeal brief did not assert harmful error, and new evidence concerning debts, submitted during the appeal, could not be considered at that stage.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied due to the persistent concerns regarding the applicant's financial history and the lack of sufficient mitigating factors presented within the proper procedural framework.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

F3rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Temporary and Have Been Resolved or Are Being Resolved.The judge found insufficient evidence to support this mitigating condition.
F2rejectedThe Applicant Has a Good Track Record of Paying Debts and Has Made Efforts to Resolve Financial Issues.The judge determined that the applicant did not provide enough evidence to demonstrate a good track record.

Key Rule Quoted

“Our authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error.”
— ISCR Case No. 14-05468 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 9, 2016)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 15, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 12, 2016Decision on the written record.
Decision dateOct 4, 2016Appeal 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal was regarding the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant, representing himself, did not assert any harmful error in his appeal. The Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge, stating that new evidence could not be considered and that the overall decision was supported by the record.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert J. Tuider — 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 makes no assertion of harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not assert any harmful error and presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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 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

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 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