A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-01240.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 30, 2019 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, 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 and failed to demonstrate merit for an exception under the relevant directive.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the Judge.
- The applicant failed to demonstrate merit for an exception under the relevant directive.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2018-05-30
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2019-02-19
- Decision date
- 2019-04-30
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
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.
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. 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
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