CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-01564.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-01564.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-01564.a1

Jul 8, 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 upheld on appeal.

The applicant's appeal brief did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Furthermore, the appeal included new evidence that was not admissible for consideration by the Board.

Due to these procedural deficiencies, the appeal was denied, and the original denial of the security clearance was sustained.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG FraisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 1, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 29, 2016Decision issued by Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny
Decision dateJul 8, 2016Appeal decision affirmed by the Appeal Board

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal Process
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals

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 filed by the Applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error, and new evidence submitted was not considered. The appeal was thus denied.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowClaude R. Heiny — 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 appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
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 appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of documents from creditors and a character reference letter. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-01564.a1 DATE: 07/08/2016 DATE: July 8, 2016 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-01564

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 October 1, 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 April 29, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny 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 new evidence in the form of documents from creditors and a character reference letter. 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. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board