CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-01662.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-01662.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01662.a1

May 6, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant appealed this decision, but the appeal was subsequently denied.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to allege any harmful error committed by the judge in the initial decision. The appeal board's authority is strictly limited to reviewing such allegations of harmful error. Since no such claims were made, the board affirmed the original denial.

The appeal board did not consider the potential impact of this unfavorable ruling on the applicant's employment, focusing solely on the procedural requirement of identifying harmful error. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial 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 issuedJul 3, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 8, 2019
Decision dateMay 6, 2019

Cite For

Limitations of Appeal Board Authority Regarding Harmful Error Allegations
Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Impact of Unfavorable Decisions Not Considered 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 but did not raise any allegations of harmful error. The Board affirmed the denial, stating that it cannot consider the impact of an unfavorable decision on the applicant's job.

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'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 Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Judge's ruling. The Board's review is limited to the errors raised by the appealing party, and since no such errors were presented, the original 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. Instead, it describes the reasons for his financial problems and his efforts to resolve them. Applicant also indicates that a security clearance is required for his job. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-01662.a1 DATE: 05/06/2019 DATE: May 6, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ---------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-01662 ) ) 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 3, 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 March 8, 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. Instead, it describes the reasons for his financial problems and his efforts to resolve them. Applicant also indicates that a security clearance is required for his job. 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. 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