A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-03052.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 16, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge and only provided a narrative discussing evidence and financial improvements post-hearing.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge.
- The appeal contained only a narrative discussing evidence and financial improvements, not addressing the grounds for denial.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-11-13
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-03-27
- Decision date
- 2017-06-16
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
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.
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; 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
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