CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-03647.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-03647.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-03647.a1

Oct 31, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The Appeal Board affirmed this denial, finding no harmful error in the initial decision.

The applicant's claims of financial integrity and potential career advancement were deemed insufficient to overturn the denial. The Board specifically noted that the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the initial decision-making process.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied based on the applicant's failure to mitigate the financial concerns raised under Guideline F, specifically Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision.”
— ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 19, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 31, 2019
Decision dateOct 31, 2019

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Alleging Harmful Error for Successful Appeal
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority

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 did not raise any allegations of harmful error in the appeal. The Board affirmed the denial, stating that it could not consider the potential impact of an unfavorable decision on the applicant's career or education.

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 harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the appeal did not present grounds for overturning the denial of the security clearance.

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 harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it asserts that Applicant is committed to maintaining financial integrity. He also indicates that granting him a security clearance will allow him to advance in his career and to pursue higher education. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-03647.a1 DATE: 10/31/2019

DATE: October 31, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ---------- ) ISCR Case No. 17-03647 ) ) 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 December 19, 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 July 31, 2019, after the hearing, 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 harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it asserts that Applicant is committed to maintaining financial integrity. He also indicates that granting him a security clearance will allow him to advance in his career and to pursue higher education. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015). 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

Singed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board