CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-03495.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-03495.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-03495.a1

Apr 7, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The Appeal Board affirmed this denial.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG F1, which addresses financial issues that raise security concerns. The applicant's specific financial problems were deemed to pose an unacceptable security risk.

Crucially, the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the original decision to deny the clearance. Consequently, the Appeal Board found no basis to overturn the initial determination, and the security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG F1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board can neither receive nor consider this new evidence.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 4, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldFeb 10, 2017Administrative Judge denied the request for a security clearance.
Decision dateApr 7, 2017Appeal 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant, representing himself, did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as there were no grounds for overturning the decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant raises no allegation of harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to the errors raised by the appealing party, and since no such errors were presented, the original decision stands.

Appeal Board panel

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

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: 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

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 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