CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-06491.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-06491.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-06491.a1

Apr 15, 2016· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to unresolved financial issues, falling under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The initial decision cited disqualifying conditions E2.A2.1 and F2.A1.1.

The applicant appealed the denial, but the appeal was ultimately unsuccessful. The DOHA Appeal Board affirmed the adverse decision because the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial ruling. Additionally, the appeal included new evidence that had not been presented to DOHA previously, which the Board could not consider.

Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.1raisedPersonal Conduct
F2.A1.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 29, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 9, 2016Decision on the written record.
Decision dateApr 15, 2016

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations on New Evidence Submission During Appeal
Criteria for Evaluating Financial Considerations in Security Clearance Cases

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 involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to concerns under Guideline E and Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The appeal was limited to the record and did not include new evidence.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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 E; Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-06491.a1 DATE: 04/15/2016 DATE: April 15, 2016 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-06491

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 29, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and 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 February 9, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Mark Harvey 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, it contains a statement by the Applicant detailing the history of his financial problems, the current status of his debts, and his efforts to obtain legal assistance. Most of Applicant’s submission is made up of information that was not previously submitted to DOHA. 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board