CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-01837.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-01837.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01837.a1

May 9, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to admitted financial issues. The applicant appealed the decision, but the Appeal Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the original judge's decision.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's admission to all allegations detailed in the Statement of Reasons, specifically those outlined in AG ¶ 20. During the appeal process, the applicant did not raise any allegations of error regarding the judge's initial ruling.

Consequently, the Appeal Board concluded that the judge's decision to deny the clearance was sound, given the applicant's acknowledgments and lack of substantive challenge to the process or findings. The security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 20, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 15, 2019Decision issued by Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman.
Decision dateMay 9, 2019Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Allegations
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Importance of Admitting Allegations in Security Clearance Cases

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 was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not raise any allegations of harmful error in his appeal. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision due to the lack of harmful error allegations.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Judge's findings were based on the record, including the personal subject interview summary.

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: 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-01837.a1 DATE: 05/09/2019 DATE: May 9, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ----------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-01837 ) ) 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 20, 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 decision on the written record. On March 15, 2019, after considering the record, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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, he disputes a statement that is contained in the summary of his personal subject interview (PSI). He contends the investigator erred in reporting that he paid certain credit card debts when he supposedly told the investigator those debts were charged off. In this regard, we note that Applicant admitted all of the allegations in his SOR response. Furthermore, he was provided a copy of Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), was given the opportunity to object to matters in the FORM, including the PSI summary, and was permitted to submit additional matters for the Judge’s consideration. He did not submit a response to the FORM. We find no error in the Judge’s findings based upon the PSI summary. Applicant also requests that we review his current credit report. The Appeal Board, however, is not permitted to receive new evidence (Directive ¶ E3.1.29) and 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