A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-07517.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 8, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The appeal board affirmed the denial based on the applicant's failure to allege harmful error by the judge and the inapplicability of new evidence submitted post-decision. The applicant's financial issues, including tax liens and debts, were not sufficiently mitigated to warrant a clearance.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge.
- The appeal board cannot consider new evidence not presented during the original hearing.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsrejected
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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-05-11
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2017-11-09 Decision made by Administrative Judge David M. White.
- Decision date
- 2018-03-08 Appeal 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
The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board also noted that it cannot consider new evidence submitted on appeal.
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: 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
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