CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-00186.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-00186.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-00186.a1

Jul 19, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial concerns. The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to respond to a request from the Judge for additional information regarding his debts. The applicant asserted that he did not see this request because it was directed to his spam folder.

The Appeal Board upheld the denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Judge's initial decision. The primary disqualifying condition cited was AG ¶ 20, which relates to financial irresponsibility.

Ultimately, the applicant's failure to provide the requested financial information, coupled with the absence of any alleged harmful error in the process, led to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 11, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 9, 2016
Decision dateJul 19, 2016

Cite For

Failure to Respond to Requests for Additional Information Under Guideline F
No Harmful Error Alleged by the Applicant
Upholding of Denial Based on Lack of Response to Financial Concerns

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 decision, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The applicant claimed he missed an email request for additional information due to it being sent to his spam folder, but this did not constitute a harmful error for the appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert J. Tuider — 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 allege any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error, which is necessary for the Board to review the case.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
James E. Moody
Included a dissent

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’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Such an error has not been alleged in this case. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-00186.a1 DATE: 07/19/2016 DATE: July 19, 2016 In Re: ------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-00186

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 July 11, 2015, 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 May 9, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of error on the part of the Judge. In the decision, the Judge noted he sent Applicant an email (copying Department Counsel) that provided him the opportunity to submit additional information on specific debts. The Judge received no response. Decision at 2. Applicant claims the Judge’s email went into his spam folder, and he did not see the email before receipt of the decision. He is now requesting an opportunity to provide the information the Judge requested. A review of the record reflects Applicant was provided with the procedural rights set forth in the Directive, including an opportunity to respond to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Such an error has not been alleged in this case. The Board does not review cases de novo. The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance 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 Dissenting Opinion of Administrative Judge James E. Moody The Judge cited Applicant’s failure to respond to his request for additional information as one of the explicit reasons that he denied Applicant a clearance. “Despite having been provided with an opportunity to do so, Applicant did not provide documentation that his remaining six debts were being resolved or were under control.” Decision at 6. However, Applicant never saw the request. The Judge sent the request for information to Applicant’s personal email account, where it was routed to the spam folder. Applicant states that his previous communications from DOHA had been through the postal service or his official email account. It isn’t surprising to me, therefore, that he did not see the Judge’s message. Under the facts of this case, I would remand the file to the Judge to provide Applicant with an opportunity to respond to his request for information. Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board