A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-05009.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 24, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The denial was based on the judge's finding that the applicant's home equity loan was for a pool installation, which the applicant contested. The appeal board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error on the part of the Judge.
- The judge's finding regarding the home equity loan was based on the applicant's personal interview.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review a case de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-01-15
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2017-02-10 Decision made by Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman.
- Decision date
- 2017-05-24 Appeal 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
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 ruling.
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 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
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