CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07119.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07119.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07119.a1

Sep 12, 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's brief did not identify any harmful error in the initial decision. Additionally, the appeal included new evidence that could not be considered during the appellate review process.

Consequently, the original denial of the security clearance was upheld.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“We do not review cases de novo. Our scope of review is limited to cases in which Applicants have raised an issue of harmful error.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.32

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 14, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJun 12, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin.
Decision dateSep 12, 2017Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Scope of Review Limited to Harmful Error in Appeals
New Evidence Not Considered on Appeal
Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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 concerned the denial of the applicant's security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant's appeal did not raise any harmful errors, and the Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision to deny the clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert J. Kilmartin — 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 brief does 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 raise an issue of harmful error and included new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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 brief does not raise an issue of harmful error. Rather, it includes new evidence concerning his state tax obligations, his child support debt, etc. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-07119.a1 DATE: 09/12/2017 DATE: September 12, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-07119

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 14, 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 June 12, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s brief does not raise an issue of harmful error. Rather, it includes new evidence concerning his state tax obligations, his child support debt, etc. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. We do not review cases de novo. Our scope of review is limited to cases in which Applicants have raised an issue of harmful error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32; See ISCR Case No. 15-01734 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Jan .19, 2017). Accordingly, 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board