CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-03052.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-03052.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-03052.a1

Jun 16, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was affirmed, and the denial upheld. The applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Instead, the appeal consisted solely of a narrative discussing evidence and financial improvements made after the hearing, which failed to address the specific grounds for the initial denial.

Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 13, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 27, 2017
Decision dateJun 16, 2017

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations of Appeal Process Regarding New Evidence
Consideration of Financial Improvements Post-hearing Without Addressing Prior Concerns

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 concerns under Guideline F and Guideline E. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm the Administrative Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error. The appeal was based on a narrative statement rather than specific claims of error.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
William S. Fields

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’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, his submission contains a narrative statement discussing the evidence presented below and improvements in his financial situation that have occurred subsequent to the hearings. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-03052.a1 DATE: 06/16/2017 DATE: June 16, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-03052

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 November 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) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On March 27, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, his submission contains a narrative statement discussing the evidence presented below and improvements in his financial situation that have occurred subsequent to the hearing. As part of his submission, he expresses a willingness to provide “a budget, character references and any pertinent information that is required.” The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, the Board does not review a case de novo. The Appeal 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 Ra’anan Michael 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