CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07517.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07517.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07517.a1

Mar 8, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The appeal board affirmed this denial, citing the applicant's failure to allege harmful error by the administrative judge. The board also determined that new evidence submitted by the applicant after the initial decision could not be considered.

The applicant's financial issues, which included tax liens and other debts, were identified as disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 19. While mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 were considered, they were not deemed sufficient to resolve the security concerns.

Ultimately, the appeal board concluded that the applicant's financial problems were not adequately mitigated, and the procedural issues regarding the appeal prevented a reversal of the original decision. Therefore, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's new evidence regarding the removal of debts was not considered as it was submitted after the judge's decision.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review a case de novo. Its authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”
— ISCR Case No. 15-04736 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 12, 2018)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 11, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldNov 9, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge David M. White.
Decision dateMar 8, 2018Appeal affirmed by the board.

Cite For

Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error
Impact of New Evidence Submitted Post-decision

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 seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge and provided new evidence that the Board could not consider. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDavid M. White — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Charles C. Hale
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 does not review a case de novo. Its authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-07517.a1 DATE: 03/08/2018 DATE: March 08, 2018 In Re: ------------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-07517

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 May 11, 2016, 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 November 9, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge David M. White denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant requested that his case be decided on the written record and then did not respond to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). On appeal, Applicant states that the various tax liens and debts alleged in the SOR have now been removed from his credit reports, he has no other delinquent accounts, and he is satisfying his debts monthly. In support of his statement, he attaches credit reports which post-date the Judge’s decision in his case. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review a case de novo. Its authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15- 04736 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 12, 2018). 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 Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board