CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-01778.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-01778.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-01778.a1

Jan 31, 2017· 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 issues. The initial denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The applicant appealed this decision. However, the appeal was denied because the applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge who made the initial determination. Furthermore, the Board is unable to consider new evidence during an appeal or grant extensions for the purpose of obtaining additional evidence.

Consequently, the Board upheld the original decision, and the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 15, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 22, 2016
Decision dateJan 31, 2017

Cite For

Limitations on the Board's Authority to Review Cases
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error
Inability to Consider New Evidence on Appeal

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 Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in his appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to the errors claimed by the appealing party.

Appeal Board panel

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

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: The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal and has no authority to grant an applicant an extension. The Board does not review a case de novo. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision AFFIRMED. CASENO: 15-01778.a1 DATE: 01/31/2017 DATE: January 31, 2017 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-01778

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 September 15, 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 hearing. On November 22, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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 a copy of the Judge’s decision, and a statement from the Applicant requesting that a 90 day “remand/hold” be placed on the decision to allow Applicant an opportunity to obtain the removal of certain items from his credit report and provide documentary evidence of the changes.1 The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, it has no authority to grant an applicant an extension for the purpose of obtaining more evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00151 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 12, 2014). The Board does not review a case de novo. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 Applicant alleges that bankruptcy law protects him from owing certain debts he previously admitted. The record does not support his claim. Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board