A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-00804.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 1, 2016 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the judge's decision, leading to the upholding of the adverse ruling.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error in the judge's decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG F Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board does not review a case de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-07-25
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2015-12-31 Decision by Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley.
- Decision date
- 2016-04-01 Appeal affirmed.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Allegation
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Relevance of 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
The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed but did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as there were no claims 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: 15-00804.a1 DATE: 04/01/2016 DATE: April 1, 2016 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-00804
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 25, 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 December 31, 2015, after considering the record, 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 submission contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents which, on their face, postdate the Judge’s decision. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on Appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Appeal Board does not review a case de novo. The 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board