A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-02535.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 4, 2019 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the original judge and only argued that he had resolved his financial issues.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the Judge.
- The Appeal Board's review is limited to allegations of harmful error.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
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 issued
- 2018-10-31
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2019-06-24
- Decision date
- 2019-10-04
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
The appeal was from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant did not raise any allegations of harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant's brief did not present any grounds for overturning the 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 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 ) )
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