CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-06390.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-06390.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-06390.a1

Jun 14, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance primarily due to financial considerations under Guideline F. While initial concerns were raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), these allegations were ultimately withdrawn. The denial was based on the applicant's financial history, specifically a disqualifying condition detailed in AG ¶ 20.

Upon appeal, the denial was affirmed. The appeal board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's initial findings or conclusions regarding his financial suitability. The board also determined that the applicant's arguments concerning personal circumstances and newly submitted documentation were insufficient to warrant overturning the original decision.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, with the appeal board upholding the initial determination that the applicant did not mitigate the financial concerns to a degree that would permit clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial 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 issuedApr 12, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 11, 2017
Decision dateJun 14, 2017

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Overturn a Judge's Decision
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding Harmful Error.

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 Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on security concerns under multiple guidelines. The applicant did not assert any harmful errors in the Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMichael H. Leonard — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline BGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion that the Judge erred in his findings, analysis, or conclusions.

Why the Board ruled this way

Applicant did not allege any harmful error committed by the Judge, and the Board affirmed the decision based on the lack of such allegations.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
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; Guideline B; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant makes no assertion that the Judge erred in his findings, analysis, or conclusions. He stated that his children’s illnesses, which the Judge discussed in the decision, have improved and that he its taking self-help credit tutorial classes. These assertions are not sufficient to establish that the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-06390.a1 DATE: 06/14/2017 DATE: June 14, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No.15-06390

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 12, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline B (Foreign Influence), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On April 11, 2017, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard, denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In the appeal brief, Applicant stated that he surrendered his foreign passport when he became a U.S. citizen and that he settled a charged-off bank debt. The Guideline E allegation asserted that Applicant failed to disclose in a security clearance application that he previously had a foreign passport. Prior to the hearing, the Government withdrew the Foreign Influence and Personal Conduct allegations. The Judge also found in favor of Applicant on that charged-off bank debt. Because the allegation involving the foreign passport was withdrawn and the charged-off bank debt was resolved in his favor, we need not address Applicant’s assertions about those matters on appeal. In the appeal brief, Applicant also indicated that he was presenting “new documentation that was not available during my hearing.” Appeal Brief at 1. Since this document was not previously presented to the Judge for consideration, it constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant makes no assertion that the Judge erred in his findings, analysis, or conclusions. He stated that his children’s illnesses, which the Judge discussed in the decision, have improved and that he is taking self-help credit tutorial classes. These assertions are not sufficient to establish that the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. In short, Applicant has made no assertion that the Judge committed harmful error. The Board does not review cases 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 such an allegation, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board