A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-01662.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 6, 2019 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, 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 the appeal board affirmed the original decision without considering the impact of the unfavorable ruling on the applicant's employment.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge.
- The appeal board's authority is limited to allegations of harmful error, which were not made in this case.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2018-07-03
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2019-03-08
- Decision date
- 2019-05-06
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
The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant did not raise any allegations of harmful error in the appeal. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance as the Directive does not allow consideration of the impact of an unfavorable decision.
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. 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 ) )
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