CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01058.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01058.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01058.a1

Apr 2, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F1.

The applicant appealed the decision; however, the appeal was denied. The applicant did not assert that the judge made a harmful error in the initial decision. Additionally, the appeal included new evidence that could not be considered during the appellate review process.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedAug 18, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 19, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Mark Harvey.
Decision dateApr 2, 2018Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations. The applicant appealed but did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Board affirmed the denial, noting that it could not consider new evidence presented in the appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of 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 and presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
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: 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

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 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