A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 16-00481.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Nov 7, 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 affirmed as the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error by the judge, and new evidence regarding delinquent debts was not considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not raise any issue of harmful error by the Judge.
- New evidence regarding delinquent debts was not considered on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“Our scope of review is limited to cases in which the appealing party raises an issue of harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-06-07
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2017-07-27 Decision made by Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean.
- Decision date
- 2017-11-07 Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations on Considering New Evidence During Appeal
- Scope of Review for Harmful Error 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
The appeal was regarding the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant, representing himself, did not raise any harmful errors in the appeal. The Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge.
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 has not raised an issue of harmful error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-00481.a1 DATE: 11/7/2017 DATE: November 7, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00481
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 June 7, 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 27, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant has not raised an issue of harmful error by the Judge. He provides some information about the status of his delinquent debts, much of which is new evidence. We cannot consider new evidence upon appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. We do not review a case de novo. Our scope of review is limited to cases in which the appealing party raises an issue of harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-03935 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 11, 2017). There being none, the decision 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