CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-02765.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-02765.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02765.a1

Aug 17, 2015· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

This case concerns an applicant's self-represented appeal for a security clearance, which was ultimately denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Department of Defense initially denied the application due to significant unresolved financial issues, citing Disqualifying Condition F.1.

Upon appeal, the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's original decision. Consequently, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant failed to resolve the financial issues that raised security concerns. The Board's decision highlighted the applicant's lack of argument regarding any procedural or substantive errors in the initial ruling.

Therefore, the security clearance was denied based on the applicant's unresolved financial considerations and the absence of any asserted harmful error during the appeal process.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 1, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 12, 2015Decision made by Administrative Judge Shari Dam
Decision dateAug 17, 2015Appeal Board affirmed the denial

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding Harmful Error
Importance of Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals for Security Clearance Denials

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 applicant appealed the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not assert any harmful error. The Board's review was limited to the claims made by the applicant, which were absent in this case.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to the errors claimed by the appealing party, and since no such errors were presented, the original decision stands.

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
James E. Moody
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 Appeal Board does not review a case de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-02765.a1 DATE: 08/17/2015 DATE: August 17, 2015 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-02765

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 August 1, 2014, 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 12, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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 is a narrative statement that summarizes the evidence Applicant presented in response to the Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), and gives details about his continuing efforts to resolve his financial problems. The Appeal Board does not review a case de novo, and it cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board