CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00481.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00481.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00481.a1

Nov 7, 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, which addresses financial irresponsibility.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was affirmed, and the denial was upheld. The applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Additionally, new evidence concerning delinquent debts, which the applicant attempted to introduce during the appeal, was not considered.

Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied due to unresolved financial considerations and the lack of procedural error in the initial ruling.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“Our scope of review is limited to cases in which the appealing party raises an issue of harmful error.”
— ISCR Case No. 15-03935 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 11, 2017)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 7, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJul 27, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean.
Decision dateNov 7, 2017Appeal 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowThomas M. Crean — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant has not raised an issue of harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant did not raise any issues of harmful error, and therefore affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision.

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 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

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 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