A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 16-00316.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 22, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge and could not introduce new evidence on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge.
- The Board cannot receive or consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- F.2 Financial Considerationsnoted
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot receive or consider any new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-05-27
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-06-29 Applicant requested decision on written record.
- Decision date
- 2017-09-22 Appeal 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
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.
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: 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
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