CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-01834.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-01834.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-01834.a1

Sep 14, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate efforts to address his debts, which were raised as a disqualifying condition under F.1.

During the appeal process, the applicant's narrative about working with a debt consolidation agency was noted, but it was not supported by the necessary documentation. Furthermore, the applicant's appeal brief did not assert any harmful error by the judge, which is a critical component for a successful appeal.

The Appeal Board ultimately denied the appeal because it cannot consider new evidence that was not presented during the initial hearing. The lack of documentary evidence and the absence of an assertion of harmful error were the primary reasons for the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 13, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMay 4, 2017Decision issued by Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez.
Decision dateSep 14, 2017Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence Addressing Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Failure to Assert Harmful Error as Grounds for Appeal
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority

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 Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision and provided no new evidence. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowFrancisco Mendez — 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 appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the appeal did not present new evidence for consideration.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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 DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a detailed narrative statement by the Applicant explaining that he is currently working with a debt consolidation agency, and that once he gets a contract with that company he could possibly submit it to the Appeal Board as evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-01834.a1 DATE: 09/14/2017 DATE: September 14, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-01834

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 December 13, 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 Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On May 4, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant requested that his case be decided on the written record and then submitted only a one page letter in response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). “He provided no documentary evidence to corroborate or substantiate his efforts to address the debts alleged in the SOR or basis to dispute their legitimacy. He also provided no documentary evidence regarding the current state of his finances or addressing the whole person factors in AG ¶ 2(a).” Decision at 2. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a detailed narrative statement by the Applicant explaining that he is currently working with a debt consolidation agency and that once he gets a contract with that company he could possibly submit it to the Appeal Board as evidence. The Appeal Board cannot receive and consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. It does not review a case de novo. The 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board