CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-01753.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-01753.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-01753.a1

Apr 26, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial concerns. The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to provide evidence supporting his claims that he had submitted certain documents relevant to his financial situation.

Specifically, the applicant asserted that he had provided additional documentation that was not present in the official record. However, he did not offer any corroborating evidence to substantiate this claim, nor did he make a prima facie showing that these documents were, in fact, submitted.

The appeal board affirmed the initial denial, concluding that the judge's decision contained no harmful error. The board emphasized that the applicant bore the responsibility of providing evidence for his assertions, a requirement he did not meet. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 16, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 22, 2016Decision on the written record.
Decision dateApr 26, 2016

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Evidence for Claims of Submitted Documents
Importance of Providing Corroborating Evidence in Financial Considerations Cases
Limitations on Appeal Regarding Harmful Error Assertions

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that he submitted documents that were not considered by the Administrative Judge. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that he submitted documents in response to a File of Relevant Material that were not included in the record.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of submitting additional documents, and even if those documents were included, it was unlikely they would have changed the outcome of the decision.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

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 contends that he submitted documents in response to a File of Relevant Material that were not included in the record. No evidence corroborates his claim that he mailed the documents. Applicant failed to make a prima facie showing that he submitted the documents. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-01753.a1 DATE: 04/26/2016 DATE: April 26, 2016 In Re: ---------------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-01753

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 16, 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 February 22, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant has raised an issue of due process. In doing so, he makes assertions from outside the record, which we generally cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, we will consider new evidence insofar as it bears upon threshold issues such as due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015). Specifically, Applicant contends that he submitted documents in response to the File of Relevant Material that were not included in the record and, therefore, were not considered by the Judge. He has attached to his brief copies of the documents that he claims to have submitted. Department Counsel’s Reply Brief states that Applicant has provided no postal receipt or other evidence that would corroborate his claim to have mailed the documents in question. We cannot conclude that Applicant has made a prima facie showing that he submitted the documents. In any event, having reviewed the Judge’s decision, it is not likely that their inclusion in the record would have produced a different result. Other than this, Applicant has made no assertion of harmful error by the Judge. Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14- 01969 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2016). Therefore, the Judge’s decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board