A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-01564.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 8, 2016 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge and presented new evidence that was not admissible on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal brief did not assert harmful error by the judge.
- The appeal included new evidence that could not be considered by the Board.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG F Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-10-01
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2016-04-29 Decision issued by Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny
- Decision date
- 2016-07-08 Appeal 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
The appeal was filed by the applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge in the appeal. The Board affirmed the decision as the applicant's appeal did not meet the necessary criteria for review.
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 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
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