CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00330.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-00330.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00330.a1

Mar 15, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 15 delinquent debts totaling over $23,000. The Administrative Judge's decision to deny the clearance was upheld on appeal.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient documentation to support his claims regarding the debts. Despite the significant number and total amount of the outstanding obligations, the applicant did not adequately substantiate his assertions concerning their status or resolution.

Furthermore, the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's original findings, which cited Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19. Consequently, the appeal was denied, and the security clearance was not granted.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 20, 2018
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldNov 27, 2018Administrative Judge denied the request for a security clearance.
Decision dateMar 15, 2019Appeal Board affirmed the decision.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence
Requirement for Alleging Harmful Error for Appeal Success

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 was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not raise any allegations of harmful error and that new evidence could not be considered on appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCaroline E. Heintzelman — denied the clearance (split findings)

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 Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board is limited to reviewing the record and cannot consider new evidence presented on appeal.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealNo de-novo re-decisionHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
Charles C. Hale

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 a document and assertions that are not included in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-00330.a1 DATE: 03/15/2019 DATE: March 15, 2019 In Re: ------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-00330

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 February 20, 2018, 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 27, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Caroline E. Heintzelman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had 15 delinquent debts totaling over $23,000. In responding to the SOR, he claimed several debts were resolved, should have been resolved, or were not his responsibility. He failed to provide supporting documentation for some of his assertions. The Judge found for Applicant on two student loans totaling about $11,000 and against him on the other debts. Applicant’s appeal brief contains a document and assertions that are not included in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal.1 Directive ¶ E3.1.29. His brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge, but it does request a delay in the processing of his appeal so that he is able to present matters about a pending bankruptcy. The Board, however, does not have authority to grant such a request. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-00983 at 1-2 (App. Bd. May 17, 2011).

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 such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance 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: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 1 In his brief, for example, Applicant challenges one of the Judge’s finding (that he never met with the Command Financial Specialist). His explanation on appeal is different than the one he gave the OPM investigator (Government Exhibit 3) and is thus new evidence which the Board cannot consider.