CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-03678.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-03678.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03678.a1

Jan 30, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from the judge's initial assessment, which raised disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19.

The applicant appealed the decision, arguing that the judge had not adequately considered all evidence, particularly mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20. However, the appeal board upheld the denial. They found that the applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the judge had considered all evidence presented.

Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate that the judge's weighing of the evidence was arbitrary or contrary to law. The board concluded that the applicant's arguments regarding the application of mitigating conditions were insufficient to overturn the original decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's assessment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support the application of mitigating conditions.

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.”
— ISCR Case No. 17-00257 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2017)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 23, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 13, 2017
Decision dateJan 30, 2018

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the judge did not properly consider certain evidence and claimed to have satisfied mitigating conditions. The Board affirmed the judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip J. Katauskas — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not raise any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Administrative Judge did not err in his decision and that the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the proceedings.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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 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

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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