A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 16-00556.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 18, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced denial of his security clearance under Guideline F due to financial considerations. He acknowledged his failure to manage his financial responsibilities and did not contest the judge's decision, which was based on the lack of evidence to support a different outcome. The appeal board affirmed the denial, noting that new evidence presented was not permissible for consideration.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant acknowledged his failure to manage financial responsibilities.
- The appeal board found no assertion of harmful error by the judge.
- New evidence presented by the applicant was not considered due to procedural restrictions.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“Our jurisdiction is limited to those cases in which the appealing party alleges such an error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-05-23
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-06-30 Decision issued by Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan.
- Decision date
- 2017-09-18 Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
- Lack of Harmful Error Assertion as a Basis for Appeal
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. The Board found that the Applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge, leading to the affirmation of the denial.
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 brief, viewed in its totality, does not make an assertion of harmful error by the Judge. Our jurisdiction is limited to those cases in which the appealing party alleges such an error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-00556.a1 DATE: 09/18/2017 DATE: September 18, 2017 In Re: ----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00556
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 23, 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 30, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant acknowledges at the outset that he failed in “owning up” to his financial responsibilities. He forthrightly states that “the Judge was correct with [her] decision[.]” Appeal Brief at 1. He goes on to describe circumstances that affected his dilatory tax return filings and past- due tax payments. He cites to record evidence that his returns have by now been filed and that he has attempted to secure payments plans with the IRS.1 In addition to these things, Applicant’s brief includes a substantial amount of new evidence, which the Directive does not permit us to consider.2 Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant’s brief, viewed in its totality, does not make an assertion of harmful error by the Judge. Our jurisdiction is limited to those cases in which the appealing party alleges such an error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Accordingly, the Judge’s decision 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board
Footnotes
1 Applicant does not argue that the Judge failed to consider this evidence or that she mis-weighed it. However, to the extent that such an argument is implicit in his reference to it, he has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017).
2 Even so, we conclude that, had this information been included in the record evidence, it would not have led to a different result.