A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-08409.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 18, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to unresolved financial issues. Despite admitting to 17 of 19 allegations and presenting new evidence on appeal, the applicant failed to demonstrate harmful error by the judge, leading to the affirmation of the adverse decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of resolving financial issues.
- The applicant admitted to 17 out of 19 allegations but did not respond to the remaining two.
- The appeal did not assert harmful error by the judge, and new evidence was not considered.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsrejected
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-05-04
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2017-06-29 Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert Tuider.
- Decision date
- 2017-09-18 Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.
Cite for
- Insufficient Evidence of Resolving Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Asserted
- Limitations on New Evidence During 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 involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision and instead submitted new evidence that was not permissible for consideration. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision.
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: 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 and a document that post-dates the Judge’s decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-08409.a1 DATE: 09/18/2017 DATE: September 18, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-08409
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 4, 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 decision on the written record. On June 29, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert Tuider denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant admitted to 17 of the 19 allegations in the SOR, and did not respond to the remaining two allegations. He 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 in the case in large measure on the fact that: “. . . the file lacks sufficient evidence that Applicant paid, arranged to pay, settled, compromised, disputed, or otherwise resolved any of the delinquent SOR accounts. He did not describe financial counseling or present a budget. The record lacks corroborating or substantiating documentation and detailed explanations of the causes for his financial problems and other mitigating information.” Decision at 3. 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 and a document that post-dates the Judge’s decision. This evidence indicates that Applicant has been enrolled for some time in a debt repayment program and has resolved or settled over 90% of his outstanding debts. The Board cannot consider 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