A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-07119.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 12, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal was denied as the applicant's brief did not raise any harmful error and included new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's brief did not raise an issue of harmful error.
- New evidence presented in the appeal could not be considered.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-04-14
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2017-06-12 Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin.
- Decision date
- 2017-09-12 Appeal 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
The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant's appeal did not raise any harmful errors and included new evidence that was not permissible for consideration. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.
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’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
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