A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 17-01199.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 12, 2019 · 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 did not allege any harmful error by the judge, leading to the affirmation of the adverse decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge, which is necessary for the appeal to succeed.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2017-05-03
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2018-12-04
- Decision date
- 2019-02-12
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Allegation
- Limitations of Appeal Board Review Authority
- 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 after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant, representing himself, did not raise any allegations of harmful error in his appeal. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision to deny the clearance as no harmful error was alleged.
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 appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-01199.a1 DATE: 02/12/2019 DATE: February 12, 2019 In Re: ------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-01199
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 3, 2017, 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 hearing. On December 4, 2018, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Stephanie C. Hess denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains assertions about the reasons for his financial problems and his actions to resolve them.
The Board does not review cases de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board