CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-01153.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-01153.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-01153.a1

Jul 7, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant did not contest the judge's initial decision to deny the clearance, effectively accepting the findings related to his financial history and personal conduct.

During the appeal process, the applicant cited extenuating circumstances regarding his financial situation but did not allege any harmful error in the original decision made by the judge. Consequently, the Administrative Judges affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

The denial was upheld because the applicant did not challenge the judge's findings or assert that any procedural or substantive error occurred during the initial adjudication.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 7, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 24, 2017Decision made on written record.
Decision dateJul 7, 2017Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Contestation by the Applicant
Importance of Alleging Harmful Error for Successful Appeal
Consideration of Extenuating Circumstances in Financial Matters

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 was reviewed after the Department of Defense denied the applicant a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant did not contend that the Judge's decision was in error and cited extenuating circumstances. The Board affirmed the decision as no harmful error was alleged.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert J. Kilmartin — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not contend that the Judge's decision was in error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decision

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; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant states the following: “I do not contend that the [J]udge’s decision was in error.” Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-01153.a1 DATE: 07/07/2017 DATE: July 7, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-01153

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 December 7, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On March 24, 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 states the following: “I do not contend that the [J]udge’s decision was in error.” Appeal Brief at 1. He states that there are extenuating circumstances, including that he did not carefully check his credit reports and that he did not intend to deceive anyone. Applicant’s brief appears to address a purported false statement alleged under Guideline E that the Judge resolved in Applicant’s favor. He also cites to statements from himself and his son concerning student loans, which were included in the record as Applicant’s Response to the File of Relevant Material. However, he does not assert that the Judge erred in regard to the contents of these statements. We do not review a case de novo. Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01734 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Jan. 19, 2017). Accordingly, the 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