CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-01734.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-01734.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-01734.a1

Jan 19, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition F1.

The applicant appealed this denial. However, the appeal was unsuccessful because the applicant did not assert any harmful error committed by the judge in the initial decision. Additionally, the appeal included new evidence that, according to procedural rules, could not be considered at the appellate stage.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, upholding the original determination based on the applicant's financial considerations and the procedural limitations of the appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“We do not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 23, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 3, 2016
Decision dateJan 19, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
Requirement to Assert Harmful Error for Appeal Consideration

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 appeal was filed by the Applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not raise any harmful error in the appeal. The appeal included new evidence, which the Board could not consider.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGregg A. Cervi — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not raise an issue on harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and new evidence cannot be considered on appeal. The Board's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing claims of harmful error.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
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: Applicant did not raise an issue on harmful error by the Judge. We do not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-01734.a1 DATE: 01/19/2017 DATE: January 19, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-01734

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 November 23, 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 hearing. On November 3, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi 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 harmful error. Rather, it includes new evidence, an IRS Form 2828, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Moreover, we do not review cases de novo. Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-07018 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2016). Because Applicant has made no such allegation, the 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board