CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05009.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-05009.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05009.a1

May 24, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application was denied under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The applicant, representing himself, contested the judge's finding that a home equity loan was used for a pool installation.

The denial was upheld because the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's decision. The judge's finding regarding the home equity loan's purpose was based on information provided during the applicant's personal interview. The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding there was no harmful error.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review a case de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 15, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldFeb 10, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman.
Decision dateMay 24, 2017Appeal affirmed by the Board.

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on the Appeal Process Regarding Harmful Error
The Significance of Personal Interviews in Determining Financial Conduct

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that the Judge erred in finding that his home equity loan was for the installation of a pool. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserts the Judge erred by finding his home equity loan was for installation of a pool.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were based on substantial evidence and that the Applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperNo de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
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 asserts the Judge erred by finding his home equity loan was for instillation of a pool. The Judge’s finding is based on Applicant’s personal subject interview. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-05009.a1 DATE: 05/24/2017 DATE: May 24, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-05009

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 January 15, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On February 10, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In this case, Applicant did not file a response to the Government’s File of Relevant Material. His brief contains new evidence, in the form of character reference letters and account statements that post-date the Judge’s decision, which the Board cannot consider on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant asserts the Judge erred by finding his home equity loan was for installation of a pool. The Judge’s finding is based on Applicant’s personal subject interview. Applicant also states it would make no sense to use his IRA to pay debts because of the penalties. The Judge’s finding and conclusions in this regard arose because Applicant had proposed to take that action. The 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 demonstrated any harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields_____ William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board