CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-08409.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-08409.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-08409.a1

Sep 18, 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 applicant admitted to 17 of 19 allegations concerning financial problems but did not respond to the remaining two.

Despite the admissions, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the financial issues had been resolved. On appeal, the applicant presented new evidence, but this was not considered because the appeal did not assert harmful error by the judge.

Ultimately, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the judge made a harmful error in the initial decision. Consequently, the adverse decision was affirmed, and the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not provide evidence of financial counseling or a budget.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 4, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJun 29, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert Tuider.
Decision dateSep 18, 2017Appeal 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Tuider — 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 Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error and presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. 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: 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

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 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