A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-04628.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 18, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to failure to demonstrate harmful error in the judge's decision. The appeal was based on a belief of insufficient case strength and new evidence regarding debt repayment plans, but the Board found no specific errors identified. The judge's decision was affirmed.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not raise an issue of harmful error in the judge's decision.
- The Board's authority is limited to cases where the appealing party has alleged harmful error.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“Our scope of authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has raised such an issue.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-01-17
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-02-17 Decision made by Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera.
- Decision date
- 2017-04-18 Appeal decision affirmed.
Cite for
- Limitations of Appeal Authority Regarding Harmful Error
- Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Specific Errors Are Identified
- Pro Se Representation 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 appealed the decision but did not raise any specific harmful error. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision due to the lack of harmful error allegations.
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 did not raise an issue of harmful error. Our scope of authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has raised such an issue. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-04628.a1 DATE: 04/18/2017 DATE: April 18, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-04628
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 17, 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 February 17, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 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 is appealing the Judge’s decision because he feels that he did not make a strong enough case for the CAF to allow him to continue to hold a clearance. He also reiterates the statements he made in response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) and offers new evidence in the form a narrative statement that he has developed a budget and intends to pay off his debts within 18 months. Applicant does not point to any specific error in the Judge’s decision.
The Board does not review a case de novo. Additionally, it cannot receive and consider any new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge 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