CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05330.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-05330.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05330.a1

May 24, 2016· Hon. James E. Moody· appeal

Summary

On May 24, 2016, a security clearance was denied to an applicant representing himself, based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial cited Disqualifying Condition F1, related to financial issues, and Disqualifying Condition E2, concerning personal conduct.

The primary reasons for the denial included the applicant's failure to provide supporting evidence for his financial plans during the appeal process. Additionally, the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in his appeal.

New evidence regarding the applicant's financial circumstances was not considered during the appeal. The Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant had not mitigated the security concerns raised under the specified guidelines.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
E2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 29, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldApr 11, 2016Decision made by Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch.
Decision dateMay 24, 2016Board 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any 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 the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

James E. Moody
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; 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

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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