CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-03098.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-03098.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-03098.a1

Jul 26, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The Department of Defense denied a security clearance application under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant, representing himself, faced disqualifying condition F1. While mitigating condition F3 was considered, it was not sufficient to overcome the concerns.

The denial was based on financial information from 2015, which indicated that a bankruptcy plan was not fully resolved. On appeal, the applicant did not assert that the judge made a harmful error in the initial decision.

The Board affirmed the denial, noting that new evidence submitted by the applicant during the appeal process could not be considered. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F3rejectedThe Individual Has Made a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant's bankruptcy plan was not fully resolved at the time of the decision.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 11, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMay 26, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean.
Decision dateJul 26, 2017Board affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal
Lack of Harmful Error Assertion in Appeal Process

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 who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed without alleging any specific harmful error and included new evidence that was not considered. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowThomas M. Crean — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any specific 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 and presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. 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 DIGEST: The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-03098.a1 DATE: 07/26/2017 DATE: July 26, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-03098

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 December 11, 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 26, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean 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 did not respond to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). The Judge based his adverse decision on the record that was before him which contained credit reports and other financial information dating from 2015. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no specific assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a detailed narrative statement by the Applicant explaining his current financial situation. As part of his submission he includes documents that post-date the submission of his case for decision, including Federal and State tax returns for 2016 and a Chapter 13 Trustee Interim Statement from 2017. His presentation indicates that his Federal and State taxes are now current, and his bankruptcy plan is being paid on time with no missing payments and is now over 50% complete. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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