CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-02348.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-02348.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-02348.a1

Aug 13, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The initial denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The applicant appealed this decision but did not allege any specific errors in the Judge's original ruling. Consequently, the Appeal Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error to warrant a reversal.

Therefore, the applicant's security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 21, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 6, 2019
Decision dateAug 13, 2019

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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 allegations of error, instead requesting reconsideration. The Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision due to the lack of harmful error allegations.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMichael H. Leonard — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the appeal. The Board's review is limited to allegations of harmful error, and since none were presented, the original decision stands.

Appeal Board panel

Michael 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 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 ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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