CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-06746.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-06746.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-06746.a1

Apr 1, 2016· 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 Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) affirmed the adverse decision.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to resolve his financial issues, despite his claims of debt consolidation. The DOHA found that these issues remained outstanding, triggering disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 20.

During the appeal process, the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the initial decision. Consequently, the DOHA upheld the denial, concluding that the applicant had not mitigated the financial concerns necessary for a security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 20, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 28, 2016Decision made by Administrative Judge James F. Duffy.
Decision dateApr 1, 2016Appeal 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision due to the lack of harmful error allegations.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJames F. Duffy — 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 allege any harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, and since none were presented, the original decision stands.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
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: 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

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 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