Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

ISCR Case No. 15-03098.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Jul 26, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The Department of Defense denied the application based on financial issues, including a bankruptcy plan that was not fully resolved. The Board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant did not demonstrate harmful error in the judge's decision and that new evidence submitted on appeal could not be considered.

Why the applicant was denied

  • The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge in the appeal.
  • The judge's decision was based on financial information from 2015, which indicated unresolved financial issues.
  • New evidence submitted by the applicant on appeal was not considered by the Board.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

  • F1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised

Mitigating

  • F3 The individual has made a good faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debtsrejected

Key rule quoted

“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural posture

SOR issued
2015-12-11
Answer filed
Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held
2017-05-26 Decision made by Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean.
Decision date
2017-07-26 Board affirmed the denial.

Cite for

  • Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
  • Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal
  • Lack of Harmful Error Assertion in Appeal Process

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 under Guideline F. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not assert any specific harmful error and presented new evidence that 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 PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

Synopsis

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-03098.a1 DATE: 07/26/2017 DATE: July 26, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-03098

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 11, 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 26, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean 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 did not respond to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). The Judge based his adverse decision on the record that was before him which contained credit reports and other financial information dating from 2015. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no specific assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a detailed narrative statement by the Applicant explaining his current financial situation. As part of his submission he includes documents that post-date the submission of his case for decision, including Federal and State tax returns for 2016 and a Chapter 13 Trustee Interim Statement from 2017. His presentation indicates that his Federal and State taxes are now current, and his bankruptcy plan is being paid on time with no missing payments and is now over 50% complete. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board