A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 16-03678.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 30, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to insufficient rebuttal of the presumption that the judge considered all evidence. The appeal board upheld the decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's assessment of the evidence.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not rebut the presumption that the judge considered all evidence.
- The applicant failed to demonstrate that the judge's weighing of evidence was arbitrary or contrary to law.
- The applicant's arguments regarding mitigating conditions were found insufficient.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsrejected
Key rule quoted
“Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-12-23
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-10-13
- Decision date
- 2018-01-30
Cite for
- Insufficient Rebuttal of Evidence Consideration by the Judge
- Failure to Demonstrate Harmful Error in the Judge's Decision
- Rejection of Mitigating Conditions Due to Lack of Supporting Evidence
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 seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the judge erred in not considering certain evidence and claimed to have satisfied mitigating conditions. The Board affirmed the judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.
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: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 16-03678.a1 DATE: 01/30/2018 DATE: January 30, 2018 In Re: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-03678
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 December 23, 2016, 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 October 13, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip J. Katauskas denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant includes in his brief a substantial amount of information from outside the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant states that he did not see Department Counsel’s notice in the File of Relevant Material that the interview summary was lacking authentication and, in any event, he states that he was not qualified to authenticate it. It is not clear whether Applicant is arguing that the Judge should have considered the interview or should not have considered it. In this case, the Judge stated that he did not consider this document precisely because he was not satisfied that Applicant understood the meaning of authentication. Decision at 2. The Judge’s conclusion in this case not to consider the document is sustainable. Applicant argues that he has satisfied the mitigating conditions. However, except as noted above, he has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-00257 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2017). Beyond this, Applicant has not raised an issue of harmful error. Our authority to review a case is limited to those in which the Appellant has raised an issue of harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08349 (App. Bd. Dec. 4, 2017).
Order
The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board