CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05205.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-05205.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05205.a1

Jun 14, 2018· 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 based on disqualifying conditions raised in AG ¶ 19.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was denied. The appellate authority noted that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Furthermore, the appeal included new evidence that had not been presented to or considered by the judge during the original proceedings.

Consequently, the appeal was unsuccessful, and the applicant's security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 2, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 19, 2017
Decision dateJun 14, 2018

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on New Evidence in Appeal Process
Affirmation of Lower Decision When No Harmful Error Is Alleged

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 was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant's appeal did not raise any allegations of harmful error, leading the Board to affirm the lower decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPamela C. Benson — 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 raises no allegation 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 presented in the appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Charles C. Hale
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 raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-05205.a1 DATE: 06/14/2018 DATE: June 14, 2018 In Re: -------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No.14-05205

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 February 2, 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 December 19, 2017, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Pamela C. Benson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement about his current financial status and his efforts to resolve the alleged debts. It also contains documents not previously submitted to the Judge, including a statement from a credit counseling service that post-dates the Judge’s decision. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review cases 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 such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board