CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-03249.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-03249.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-03249.a1

Jul 6, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The Administrative Judge's decision cited Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20, while also applying Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 21.

The applicant appealed the denial, presenting new evidence related to garnishments. However, the Board is unable to consider new evidence during an appeal or grant extensions for its submission. Consequently, the Board could not review the additional information provided by the applicant.

Ultimately, the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's initial decision. As a result, the Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's new evidence regarding garnishments was not considered.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review a case de novo.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 18, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 17, 2016Record held open for additional evidence.
Decision dateJul 6, 2017Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations
Authority of the Board in Reviewing Cases

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 decision, noting that the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge and that new evidence presented could not be considered on appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal and found no harmful error alleged by the Applicant. Therefore, the Administrative Judge's decision is affirmed.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
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 DIGEST: The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal and has no authority to grant Applicant an extension for the purpose of obtaining more evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-03249.a1 DATE: 07/06/2017 DATE: July 6, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-03249

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 November 18, 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 hearing. On March 24, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In this case, the hearing was held on August 17, 2016 and the record was held open for Applicant to provide additional evidence. Between August 31, 2016 and October 3, 2016 Applicant provided two documents in a series of e-mails which were accepted without objection, and the record was closed on October 17, 2016. On appeal Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, he presents new evidence indicating that two garnishments have now been removed, one in January 2017 and the other in March 2017. He also requests a four week extension so he can present evidence showing that his debt resolution process with the government has been completed. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal and has no authority to grant Applicant an extension for the purpose of obtaining more evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29; ISCR Case No. 14-00151 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 12, 2014). 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 Ra’anan Michael 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