CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-04628.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-04628.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04628.a1

Apr 18, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition F1.

The applicant appealed this denial, believing his case was not strong enough and presenting new evidence regarding debt repayment plans. However, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Appeal Board's authority is limited to reviewing cases where harmful error in the judge's decision has been specifically alleged.

Since the applicant did not identify any specific harmful errors in the judge's original ruling, the Board affirmed the judge's decision, and the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Our scope of authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has raised such an issue.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 17, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 17, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera.
Decision dateApr 18, 2017Appeal 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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.

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 raise an issue 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 in the Judge's ruling. The Board's authority is limited to reviewing cases where harmful error is claimed.

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: 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

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 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