CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-02768.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-02768.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02768.a1

Jul 1, 2015· 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 Department of Defense initially denied the application, citing Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The applicant appealed this decision. However, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial because the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Judge's initial ruling. The Board's review process is strictly limited to evaluating allegations of harmful error and does not permit the introduction of new evidence.

Consequently, without an allegation of harmful error, the Appeal Board could not overturn the original decision, and the security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

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 28, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 27, 2015
Decision dateJul 1, 2015

Cite For

Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error
Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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 his security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review was limited to the claims made by the applicant, which did not include any assertions of harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the Board's review is limited to such allegations. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael 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: The Appeal Board’s authority to review cases is limited to those in which the appealing party has alleged harmful error. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-02768.a1 DATE: 07/01/2015 DATE: July 1, 2015 In Re: --------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-02768

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 28, 2014, 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 April 27, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley 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 contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, his submission contains a narrative statement that summarizes the evidence presented at the hearing, updates his financial circumstances, and states that although he is currently unemployed, he intends to address his financial and credit obligations. As part of his submission, he attaches copies of exhibits that he introduced at the hearing. Decision at 2. The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, the Board does not review a case de novo. 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board