CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00316.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00316.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00316.a1

Sep 22, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on disqualifying condition F.1, with no mitigating conditions applied.

The applicant appealed the decision; however, the appeal was affirmed, and the denial was upheld. The Board's decision noted that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge in the initial ruling. Furthermore, the Board is unable to receive or consider new evidence during the appeal process.

Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

F.2notedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 27, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 29, 2017Applicant requested decision on written record.
Decision dateSep 22, 2017Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on Introducing New Evidence During Appeal
Requirement to Allege Harmful Error for Appeal Consideration

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 Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error. The appeal was based solely on a narrative statement regarding the Applicant's financial situation, which the Board could not consider as new evidence.

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 did not allege any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the Board cannot consider new evidence 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: The Board cannot receive or consider any new evidence on appeal. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-00316.a1 DATE: 09/22/2017 DATE: September 22, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00316

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 27, 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 that the case be decided 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’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a narrative statement in which Applicant states that he has received another letter from the U.S. Department of Education stating that his garnishment will be temporarily suspended. Additionally, he states that he is actively working to implement a voluntary repayment plan and is willing to forward the Board a copy of the repayment plan once it is established. The Board cannot receive or consider any new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, 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 F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board