CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-04465.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-04465.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04465.a1

May 24, 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 F1, which addresses financial difficulties.

While Mitigating Condition F3, indicating the applicant had resolved or was resolving financial issues, was considered, it was not sufficient to overcome the security concerns. The applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision.

The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting its authority is limited to cases where harmful error is alleged. Despite acknowledging the applicant's progress in addressing his financial issues, the Board could not overturn the decision without an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

F3appliedDebt Is Being Paid or Has Been Paid OffThe applicant stated he has paid off several creditors and is making progress.

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 7, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldMar 3, 2017Decision made by Judge Juan J. Rivera.
Decision dateMay 24, 2017Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Importance of Alleging Harmful Error for Successful Appeals

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 did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — 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 harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, and since none were presented, the original decision stands.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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 Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-04465.a1 DATE: 05/24/2017 DATE: May 24, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-04465

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 January 7, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On March 3, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In his appeal brief Applicant states that he does not believe the Judge made a wrong decision in his case. He also states that he has paid off several of his creditors, has made progress toward improving his financial situation, and is willing to provide the Appeal Board with additional information, if requested. 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. It does not review cases de novo. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board