CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-08013.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-08013.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-08013.a1

Apr 12, 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 initial decision cited disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20, while mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 21 were applied.

On appeal, the applicant presented new evidence of financial improvements. However, the Board affirmed the denial because it is unable to consider new evidence during the appeals process. Additionally, the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the original decision.

Therefore, despite the applicant's efforts to demonstrate financial improvements, the security clearance was ultimately denied based on the existing record and procedural limitations of the appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21notedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 22, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 10, 2017
Decision dateApr 12, 2017

Cite For

Limitations on the Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence on Appeal
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in an Appeal
Impact of Financial Considerations on Security Clearance Decisions

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 Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board found that the Applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error and included new evidence that could not be considered. Consequently, the Board affirmed the lower decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

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 Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

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 new evidence in the form of a narrative statement which includes clarifications or elaborations on the record evidence. The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-08013.a1 DATE: 04/12/2017 DATE: April 12, 2017 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-08013

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 May 22, 2016, 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 February 10, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to 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 new evidence in the form of a narrative statement which includes clarifications or elaborations on the record evidence, as well as affirmative assertions that: Applicant now has a better job; the Federal and state taxes he owed for tax year 2015 now have a zero balance; he now has a payment plan in place for his 2014-2015 property taxes; he is still paying child support for his eldest son; and as of the date of his Appeal Brief he has paid-off 68% of the SOR debt.1 The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board 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: Williams S. Fields William S. Fields

FOOTNOTES

1 Applicant also states in his Appeal Brief that he has done everything he could to rectify his past financial mistakes. However, this general disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00650 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 27, 2016). Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board