A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-02765.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 17, 2015 · Administrative Judge Jeffrey D. Billett · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The Department of Defense denied the application due to unresolved financial issues, and the Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant failed to resolve significant financial issues that raised security concerns.
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision during the appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2014-08-01
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2015-06-12 Decision made by Administrative Judge Shari Dam
- Decision date
- 2015-08-17 Appeal 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
The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm the Administrative Judge's decision without reaching the merits of the case.
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 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
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