CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00556.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00556.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00556.a1

Sep 18, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, specifically due to Disqualifying Condition F1. Representing himself, the applicant acknowledged his failure to manage financial responsibilities and did not contest the judge's decision. The judge's determination was based on a lack of evidence presented to support a favorable outcome.

Upon appeal, the denial was affirmed. The appeal board noted that the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge. Furthermore, new evidence presented by the applicant during the appeal process was not considered, as procedural restrictions prohibited its introduction at that stage.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied because the applicant admitted to poor financial management, and no permissible evidence was presented to overcome the initial findings.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Our jurisdiction is limited to those cases in which the appealing party alleges such an error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 23, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 30, 2017Decision issued by Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan.
Decision dateSep 18, 2017Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
Lack of Harmful Error Assertion as a Basis for Appeal

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 involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant acknowledged the Judge's decision was correct and did not assert any harmful error. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as the applicant's brief did not raise any specific harmful errors.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowErin C. Hogan — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The appeal was based on the Applicant's acknowledgment of the Judge's correctness in the decision and did not present any valid claims of error.

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, viewed in its totality, does not make an assertion of harmful error by the Judge. Our jurisdiction is limited to those cases in which the appealing party alleges such an error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-00556.a1 DATE: 09/18/2017 DATE: September 18, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00556

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 May 23, 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 30, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant acknowledges at the outset that he failed in “owning up” to his financial responsibilities. He forthrightly states that “the Judge was correct with [her] decision[.]” Appeal Brief at 1. He goes on to describe circumstances that affected his dilatory tax return filings and past- due tax payments. He cites to record evidence that his returns have by now been filed and that he has attempted to secure payments plans with the IRS.1 In addition to these things, Applicant’s brief includes a substantial amount of new evidence, which the Directive does not permit us to consider.2 Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant’s brief, viewed in its totality, does not make an assertion of harmful error by the Judge. Our jurisdiction is limited to those cases in which the appealing party alleges such an error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Accordingly, the Judge’s 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

FOOTNOTES

1 Applicant does not argue that the Judge failed to consider this evidence or that she mis-weighed it. However, to the extent that such an argument is implicit in his reference to it, he has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017).

2 Even so, we conclude that, had this information been included in the record evidence, it would not have led to a different result.