Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

ISCR Case No. 15-01834.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Sep 14, 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 appeal was denied due to insufficient evidence addressing financial concerns and failure to assert harmful error by the judge. The applicant's narrative regarding working with a debt consolidation agency was noted but deemed inadequate for the appeal.

Why the applicant was denied

  • The applicant did not provide documentary evidence to substantiate efforts to address debts.
  • The applicant's appeal brief lacked an assertion of harmful error by the judge.
  • The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

  • F.1 Financial Considerationsraised

Key rule quoted

“The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural posture

SOR issued
2015-12-13
Answer filed
Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held
2017-05-04 Decision issued by Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez.
Decision date
2017-09-14 Appeal affirmed.

Cite for

  • Insufficient Evidence Addressing Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
  • Failure to Assert Harmful Error as Grounds for Appeal
  • Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority

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 was filed by the Applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision and provided no new evidence. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

Synopsis

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a detailed narrative statement by the Applicant explaining that he is currently working with a debt consolidation agency, and that once he gets a contract with that company he could possibly submit it to the Appeal Board as evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-01834.a1 DATE: 09/14/2017 DATE: September 14, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-01834

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 13, 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 May 4, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant requested that his case be decided on the written record and then submitted only a one page letter in response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). “He provided no documentary evidence to corroborate or substantiate his efforts to address the debts alleged in the SOR or basis to dispute their legitimacy. He also provided no documentary evidence regarding the current state of his finances or addressing the whole person factors in AG ¶ 2(a).” Decision at 2. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a detailed narrative statement by the Applicant explaining that he is currently working with a debt consolidation agency and that once he gets a contract with that company he could possibly submit it to the Appeal Board as evidence. The Appeal Board cannot receive and consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. It 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 made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board