A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-00404.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 29, 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 Department of Defense denied the application due to unresolved financial issues, and the appeal board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge and presented new evidence that could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not raise any allegations of harmful error by the judge.
- The appeal board could not consider new evidence presented by the applicant.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-10-26
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2017-07-27 Decision issued by Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin.
- Decision date
- 2017-09-29 Appeal 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
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.
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’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
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