ISCR Case No. 16-01787.a1

KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: The Judge had no authority to serve as an investigator in the case and contact the bank or the collection attorneys. To do so would be inconsistent with her role as an independent fact finder. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-01787.a1 DATE: 11/22/2017 DATE: November 22, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01787

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 September 16, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On September 7, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant 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 her adverse decision as to the Guideline F allegations in large measure on the lack of documentation to substantiate his assertion that he has been working to resolve his delinquent debts. Decision at 5-6. On appeal, Applicant asserts that he had previously “supplied Bank account numbers and the phone numbers of the Collection lawyers to whom [he had] been paying for the last 5 years.” The Judge considered that information in reaching her decision. Id. at 1, 3, 5 and 7. The Judge had no authority to serve as an investigator in the case and contact the bank or the collection attorneys. To do so would be inconsistent with her role as an independent fact finder. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-00420 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 7, 2017). Applicant does not challenge the Judge’s adverse decision as to the Guideline E allegations. He asks for more time “to produce the financial statements when they arrive” for the Board’s review. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal and has no authority to grant Applicant an extension for the purpose of obtaining more evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29; ISCR Case No. 15- 08474 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 1, 2017). The Board does not review a case de novo and the adverse impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a relevant or material consideration in evaluating his or her security eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-06908 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 18, 2017). Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael 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