CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-00318.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-00318.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-00318.a1

May 6, 2016· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting two primary reasons. First, the applicant failed to assert any harmful error in the judge's initial decision. Second, the applicant submitted new evidence during the appeal process, which the Board could not consider as it was not part of the original record.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, with the Board upholding the original decision due to these procedural shortcomings rather than a re-evaluation of the financial considerations themselves.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 19, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 29, 2016Decision by Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera
Decision dateMay 6, 2016Appeal 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant made no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

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

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealNo de-novo re-decisionHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
William S. Fields
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: 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

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 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