CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-02535.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-02535.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02535.a1

Oct 4, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Appeal Board affirmed this denial.

The original decision cited Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20. The applicant did not allege any harmful error by the administrative judge in the initial ruling. Instead, his argument focused solely on the assertion that he had since resolved his financial issues.

However, the Appeal Board's review process is strictly limited to evaluating allegations of harmful error made during the initial adjudication. Since no such error was alleged by the applicant, the Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

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 issuedOct 31, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 24, 2019
Decision dateOct 4, 2019

Cite For

Limitations of Appeal Board Review Authority
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error
Financial Concerns Under Guideline F

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 due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant appealed but did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Board affirmed the denial as there were no claims of harmful error raised.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — 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 decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the Board's review is limited to such allegations. The Applicant's arguments regarding his financial circumstances did not constitute a harmful error claim.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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 brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, he explains the circumstances surrounding his financial problems and argues he has resolved the security concerns. 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-02535.a1 DATE: 10/04/2019

DATE: October 4, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) --------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-02535 ) ) 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 October 31, 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 June 24, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, he explains the circumstances surrounding his financial problems and argues he has resolved the security concerns. 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.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board