A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-05330.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 24, 2016 · Administrative Judge James E. Moody · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error by the judge, and new evidence regarding financial circumstances was not considered. The Board affirmed the denial on May 24, 2016.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant failed to provide supporting evidence regarding financial plans during the appeal process.
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge in the appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
- E2 Deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaireraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-01-29
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2016-04-11 Decision made by Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch.
- Decision date
- 2016-05-24 Board affirmed the denial.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal Process
- Absence of Harmful Error Assertion in Appeal Leading to Affirmation of Lower Decision
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 a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not assert any harmful error and that new evidence could not be considered on appeal.
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; Guideline E DIGEST: Notwithstanding Applicant’s characterization to the contrary, the Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-05330.a1 DATE: 05/24/2016 DATE: May 24, 2016 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-05330
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 January 29, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On April 11, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the 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 by the Applicant that he “didn’t supply any supporting evidence that [he] was in fact carrying out with [his] financial plans” because his debts and assets had not yet been divided during a divorce proceeding that was in process. He goes on to state that his debts and assets have now been divided and he has an attorney who will soon begin the process of filing for bankruptcy. Applicant characterizes his assertions on appeal as “not new evidence, only supporting information that was just recently obtained.” Notwithstanding Applicant’s characterization to the contrary, the Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review a case 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board