A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 11-13724.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 14, 2014 · 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 Department of Defense denied the application due to unresolved delinquent debts, and the appeal board affirmed this decision, noting the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate harmful error regarding the debts. The board emphasized that new evidence cannot be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant failed to provide documentation for four of the five delinquent debts cited in the SOR.
- The board found no evidence to support the applicant's claims regarding a phone conversation about document submission.
- The board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2013-05-08
- Answer filed
- Applicant represented himself.
- Hearing held
- 2013-11-15 Decision made by Administrative Judge Mark Harvey.
- Decision date
- 2014-02-14 Appeal affirmed by the board.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal
- Requirements for Demonstrating Harmful Error in Security Clearance Cases
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 involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the judge ignored evidence regarding delinquent debts and requested to submit new evidence. The Board affirmed the denial, stating that it could not consider new evidence on appeal and found no harmful error in the judge's decision.
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 cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 11-13724.a1 DATE: 02/14/2014 DATE: February 14, 2014 In Re: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-13724
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 8, 2013, 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 15, 2013, 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 Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant disputes the Judge’s assertion that he did not submit documentation regarding five of the largest delinquent debts cited in the SOR. Applicant is correct that the record contains a document on one of these five debts. However, there is nothing in the record evidence concerning the other four. Applicant’s brief refers to a letter that he mailed that purportedly contained information about the other four debts. There is no information provided about this letter, when it was sent, or to whom it was sent, or what relationship it had, if any, to the materials Applicant submitted in response to the Government’s File of Relevant Material. There is no presumption of error below. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-08312 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 14, 2005). Without more, the Board cannot conclude that Applicant has demonstrated harmful error. There is no evidence in the record to support Applicant’s claims regarding a phone conversation between his wife and (apparently) a DoD employee, wherein submission of documents was discussed. Department Counsel’s reply does not address the issue. Additionally, Applicant’s brief contains a request to submit new evidence concerning the disposition of certain of his debts. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board