CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-03931.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-03931.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-03931.a1

deniedAug 13, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The Appeal Board affirmed this denial.

The original decision cited Disqualifying Condition F.1. The applicant did not allege any harmful error in the initial decision during the appeal process. Furthermore, the Appeal Board could not consider new evidence submitted by the applicant, as it was not part of the original record.

Consequently, the Appeal Board upheld the denial of the applicant's security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal.
The new evidence submitted was not considered by the Appeal Board.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal 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 issuedDec 13, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 23, 2018Decision made by Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr.
Decision dateAug 13, 2018Appeal Board decision affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Allegation
Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
Authority of the Appeal Board in Reviewing Cases

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

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 cases de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a trustworthiness designation is affirmed. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-03931.a1 DATE: 08/13/2018 DATE: August 13, 2018 In Re: ------------------------ Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 17-03931

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 trustworthiness designation. On December 13, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness 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 May 23, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to 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 narrative statement about his efforts to resolve his financial problems and documents that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. Those documents constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review cases de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a trustworthiness designation 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board