CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-01969.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-01969.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-01969.a1

Apr 6, 2016· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial was primarily based on the applicant's failure to provide proof of payment for outstanding debts, which was a significant issue under Guideline F.

The applicant did not demonstrate that the judge made any harmful error in the initial decision. This limited the scope of review for the Appeal Board, as the applicant did not present specific claims challenging the judge's findings.

Ultimately, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial issues raised or to demonstrate any error in the judge's decision. The denial was upheld under Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 3, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 28, 2016Applicant requested decision on written record.
Decision dateApr 6, 2016Appeal Board affirmed denial.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Lack of Harmful Error Assertion Limits Appeal Review
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E

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 was filed by the applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant did not assert any specific harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip S. Howe — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not assert any specific harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as the applicant did not allege any harmful error that would warrant a reversal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
James E. Moody

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 Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-01969.a1 DATE: 04/06/2016 DATE: April 6, 2016 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-01969

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 November 3, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record. On January 28, 2016, after the close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe 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 makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. He asserts that in his judgment “[there] were a few issues that raised some questions,” but he does not reference any actions on the part of the Judge. The only “issue” mentioned specifically by Applicant was an irregularity with regard to “the last four digits attached” to his paperwork. He states that these numbers were incorrect without specifically identifying the nature and location of the error, or asserting any connection between any error and the actions of the Judge. Applicant also references the Judge’s statement that he had not provided any proof of payment of his debts.1 Applicant states that he had given all of his information, including character references, to the case investigator who Applicant states left his position and apparently took Applicant’s information with him. Applicant’s only other assertion is that he is requesting an appeal because having his clearance was his “way of providing for my family.” 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. The Board does not review cases de novo. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.

Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 The Judge noted that Applicant did not submit a written response to the Government’s File of Relevant Material.