A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-06746.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 1, 2016 · 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 unresolved financial issues. The applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error, leading to the affirmation of the adverse decision by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error in the appeal.
- The applicant's financial issues remained unresolved despite claims of debt consolidation.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-06-20
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2016-01-28 Decision made by Administrative Judge James F. Duffy.
- Decision date
- 2016-04-01 Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal
- Financial Considerations Under Guideline F Leading to Denial of Clearance
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 a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial as there were no allegations of harmful error.
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 made an allegation of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-06746.a1 DATE: 04/01/2016 DATE: April 1, 2016 In Re: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-06746
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 June 20, 2015, 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 January 28, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge James F. Duffy 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 that he has consolidated his debt to stay current and he is “able to provide proof if needed.” 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board