CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-00804.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-00804.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-00804.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. The denial was based on the applicant's financial history, which raised security concerns.

During the appeal process, the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the judge's initial decision to deny the clearance. Consequently, the adverse ruling was upheld.

The final outcome was a denial of the security clearance, with the decision affirmed due to the applicant's failure to demonstrate any procedural or substantive errors in the original judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG FraisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board does not review a case de novo.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 25, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldDec 31, 2015Decision by Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley.
Decision dateApr 1, 2016Appeal 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· 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 allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant has not made an allegation of 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 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: 15-00804.a1 DATE: 04/01/2016 DATE: April 1, 2016 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-00804

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 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