A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 17-02348.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 13, 2019 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not allege any error in the original decision, leading the Appeal Board to affirm the Judge's ruling.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not raise any allegations of error against the Judge's decision.
- The Appeal Board affirmed the Judge's decision due to the lack of harmful error allegations.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2017-07-21
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2019-06-06
- Decision date
- 2019-08-13
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Error Allegations
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Importance of Raising Specific Errors in Appeals
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 who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed the decision but did not raise any specific allegations of error. The Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision to deny the 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 appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it requests that the Appeal Board reconsider the Judge’s decision and presents arguments in support of that request. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-02348.a1 DATE: 08/13/2019 DATE: August 13, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 17-02348 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )
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 July 21, 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 June 6, 2019, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard 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 error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it requests that the Appeal Board reconsider the Judge’s decision and presents arguments in support of that request. 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.
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael 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