A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-00318.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 6, 2016 · Administrative Judge Jeffrey D. Billett · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance due to the applicant's failure to assert harmful error and the submission of new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision.
- New evidence submitted on appeal was not considered by the Board.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-06-19
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2016-02-29 Decision by Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera
- Decision date
- 2016-05-06 Appeal affirmed by three judges
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Authority Regarding New Evidence
- Requirement for Asserting Harmful Error for 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 applicant appealed the denial of his security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error and that new evidence could not be considered on appeal.
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: The Appeal Board can not consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-00318.a1 DATE: 05/06/2016 DATE: May 6, 2016 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-00318
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 19, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On February 29, 2016, after the close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera 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 makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. He makes assertions about the current state of his finances and attached numerous documents to his appeal brief. He stated, “[b]ased on the enclosed documentary evidence, please consider my appeal favorably and reinstate my security clearance.” Most of Applicant’s assertions and all of the documents in his appeal were not included in the record below.
The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. The Board does not review cases de novo. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board