CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-05157.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-05157.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-05157.a1

Sep 22, 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; however, the appeal was denied. The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Additionally, the appeal board is prohibited from considering new evidence during the appeal process.

Consequently, the appeal board affirmed the adverse decision, and the applicant's security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedFeb 8, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 13, 2017Decision issued by Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone.
Decision dateSep 22, 2017Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on Appeal Board's Authority Regarding New Evidence
Requirement for Asserting Harmful Error for Appeal Consideration

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 was filed by the Applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as there were no claims of harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the Appeal Board is limited to reviewing only those claims. The appeal contained no assertions of harmful error, and new evidence was not considered.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Catherine M. Engstrom
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’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-05157.a1 DATE: 09/22/2017 DATE: September 22, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-05157

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 February 8, 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 July 13, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a narrative statement explaining why his debts became delinquent, describing his efforts to resolve them, and indicating the debts are no longer legally collectable under the state’s statute of limitations. In his appeal brief, he also provided a letter of reference. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review a case de novo. 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. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Catherine M. Engstrom Catherine M. Engstrom Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board