A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 16-01058.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 2, 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 assert harmful error by the judge and presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error on the part of the judge.
- The appeal contained new evidence that was not admissible for consideration.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
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
- 2016-08-18
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-10-19 Decision made by Administrative Judge Mark Harvey.
- Decision date
- 2018-04-02 Appeal decision affirmed.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations on the Appeal Process Regarding New Evidence
- Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals
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 his security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board found that the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and therefore affirmed the denial.
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 contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement by the Applicant detailing his ongoing efforts to contact his creditors and settle his debts. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-01058.a1 DATE: 04/02/2018 DATE: April 2, 2018 In Re: ------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01058
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 August 18, 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 October 19, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Mark Harvey 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). Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement by the Applicant detailing his ongoing efforts to contact his creditors and settle his debts. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Moreover, we have no authority to grant Applicant’s request for additional time to submit favorable 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. 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. 15-01845 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Williams S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board