A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-07018.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 18, 2016 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves, sought a security clearance but was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's decision, and new evidence could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision.
- The appeal board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-08-27
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2016-06-08 Decision made by Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein.
- Decision date
- 2016-08-18 Appeal 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
The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed but did not raise any issues of harmful error. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the appeal did not present any grounds for reversal.
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: 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
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