CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-01240.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-01240.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01240.a1

Apr 30, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied a clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F1.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was denied. The denial of the appeal stemmed from the applicant's failure to allege any harmful error committed by the judge in the initial decision. Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient merit to qualify for an exception under the relevant directive governing security clearances.

Consequently, the original denial of the security clearance was upheld.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 30, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 19, 2019
Decision dateApr 30, 2019

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Allegation
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Insufficient Demonstration of Merit for Exceptions Under Security Clearance Directives

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 but did not raise any allegations of harmful error. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance as the applicant failed to demonstrate that an exception was warranted.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant raised no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
Charles C. Hale

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. She states, however, that “decisions . . . can be made other than canceling my clearance.” To the extent she is arguing that an exception under Directive, Encl. 2, App. C should be granted, she has not shown that such an exception is merited. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-01240.a1 DATE: 04/30/2019 DATE: April 30, 2019 In Re: --------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-01240

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 May 30, 2018, 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 February 19, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera 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. She states, however, that “decisions . . . can be made other than canceling my clearance.” Appeal Brief at 1. To the extent she is arguing that an exception under Directive, Encl. 2, App. C should be granted, she has not shown that such an exception is merited.

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