A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-05205.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 14, 2018 · 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 allege any harmful error by the judge and submitted new evidence that was not considered in the original decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge.
- The appeal included new evidence that was not considered by the judge.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-02-02
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-12-19
- Decision date
- 2018-06-14
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
The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant's appeal did not raise any allegations of harmful error, leading the Board to affirm the lower decision.
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 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
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