A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-03935.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 11, 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 was affirmed as the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error by the judge and was not allowed to submit new evidence.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not raise an issue of harmful error by the Judge.
- The applicant's request to submit new evidence was not permitted on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“Our scope of review is limited to cases in which the appealing party raises an issue of harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-04-05
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2017-08-01 Decision made by Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr.
- Decision date
- 2017-10-11 Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations on the Scope of Review in Appeals
- Pro Se Representation and Its Implications in Security Clearance Cases.
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, representing himself, did not raise any harmful errors in the Administrative Judge's decision and requested to submit new evidence, which was not permitted. The 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 has not raised an issue of harmful error by the Judge. Our scope of review is limited to cases in which the appealing party raises an issue of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-03935.a1 DATE: 10/11/2017 DATE: October 11, 2017 In Re: ----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-03935
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 April 5, 2016, 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 August 1, 2017, after considering the record, 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 Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant has not raised an issue of harmful error by the Judge. He states that if he had requested a hearing he would have been better able to explain his circumstances. He admits that he was not familiar with the process, but he did not attribute this lack of understanding to any deficiency in the Guidance that he received from DOHA. Applicant requests that we permit him to submit new evidence. However, we are not permitted to receive or consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. We do not review cases de novo. Our scope of review is limited to cases in which the appealing party raises an issue of harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15- 01834 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 14, 2017). There being none, the decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board