A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-03495.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 7, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant raised no allegations of harmful error in the original decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's financial issues raised security concerns under Guideline F.
- The applicant did not allege any harmful error in the original decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG F1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board can neither receive nor consider this new evidence.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-12-04
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2017-02-10 Administrative Judge denied the request for a security clearance.
- Decision date
- 2017-04-07 Appeal Board affirmed the denial.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Alleged
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Importance of Presenting All Evidence During the Original Hearing
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 who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed but did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal 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 PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant raises no allegation of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-03495.a1 DATE: 04/07/2017
DATE: April 7, 2017 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No.15-03495
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 4, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On February 10, 2017, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s Appeal Brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains information that he did not previously present to the Judge. The Appeal Board can neither receive nor consider this new evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review cases 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. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board