CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-00404.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-00404.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-00404.a1

Sep 29, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The Department of Defense denied a security clearance application under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant, representing himself, appealed the decision.

The appeal board affirmed the denial. The board noted that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Furthermore, the applicant presented new evidence during the appeal process, which the board was unable to consider.

Based on these factors, the security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 26, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJul 27, 2017Decision issued by Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin.
Decision dateSep 29, 2017Appeal board affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on Considering New Evidence in Appeals
Absence of Harmful Error Allegations as Grounds for Appeal

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 after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant, representing himself, appealed the decision but did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Board affirmed the denial as no harmful error was raised.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert J. Kilmartin — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's brief raises no allegation of harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant raised no allegations of harmful error, and the scope of review is limited to such allegations. The Applicant's brief did not assert that the Judge mis-weighed evidence already considered.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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’s brief raises no allegation of harmful error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-00404.a1 DATE: 09/29/2017 DATE: September 29, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-00404

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 October 26, 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 July 27, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s brief raises no allegation of harmful error by the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant’s brief also cites to his having hired a law firm to assist him with debt resolution. The Judge addressed this matter in the Decision, and Applicant’s brief does not assert that the Judge mis-weighed this evidence. Our scope of review is limited to cases in which the appealing party raises an allegation of harmful error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Insofar as Applicant has raised no such allegation, the Judge’s Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board