CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-07018.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-07018.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-07018.a1

Aug 18, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing themselves, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial was based on disqualifying conditions raised in AG ¶ 20.

The applicant appealed the decision; however, the appeal was affirmed, and the denial was upheld. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's initial decision, which is a requirement for a successful appeal. Additionally, the appeal board was unable to consider new evidence presented by the applicant, as appellate rules prohibit the introduction of new evidence at that stage.

Consequently, due to the lack of asserted harmful error and the inability to consider new information, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 27, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 8, 2016Decision made by Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein.
Decision dateAug 18, 2016Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
Absence of Harmful Error Assertion as a Basis for Appeal

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 under Guideline F. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant's appeal brief did not raise any issues of harmful error. The decision stands as issued by the Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJennifer I. Goldstein — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's brief raises no issue of harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal and does not review cases de novo.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
Catherine M. Engstrom

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: Appellant’s brief raises no issue of harmful error. We cannot consider new evidence in appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-07018.a1 DATE: 08/18/2016 DATE: August 18, 2016 In Re: --------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-07018

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 August 27, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On June 8, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein 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 statement detailing the current status of Applicant’s debts. The documents Applicant attaches in support of his efforts to resolve his financial situation post-date the Judge’s decision. The Board cannot consider 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields

Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Catherine M. Engstrom Catherine M. Engstrom Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board