CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-03935.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-03935.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-03935.a1

Oct 11, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on disqualifying condition F.1.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the denial was affirmed. The appeal board found no harmful error in the judge's initial decision. Additionally, the applicant's request to submit new evidence during the appeal process was not permitted.

Ultimately, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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).

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 5, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldAug 1, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr.
Decision dateOct 11, 2017Appeal 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· 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 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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — 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 raise an issue of harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the applicant did not raise any issue of harmful error, and the appeal did not present grounds for overturning the Administrative Judge's decision.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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 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

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 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