CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01011.a2 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01011.a2denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01011.a2

Jul 1, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20.

The applicant appealed the denial, but the appeal was unsuccessful. The Board affirmed the unfavorable decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge in the initial ruling. The Board emphasized that the potential impact of the denial on the applicant's employment could not be a factor in their decision.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied, with the Board's decision resting on the applicant's failure to identify specific errors in the judge's original determination.

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. 11-13180 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 21, 2013)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 15, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 26, 2019
Decision dateJul 1, 2020

Cite For

Affirmation of Unfavorable Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Alleged
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Non-consideration of Employment Impacts in Security Clearance Decisions

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 allege any harmful error in the Judge's decision, and the Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — 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 Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, and since none were raised, the original decision stands.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. 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 current appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it indicates he remains unemployed and will have difficulty finding employment without a security clearance. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01011.a2 DATE: 07/01/2020 DATE: July 1, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) --------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-01011 ) ) 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 April 15, 2019, 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 initially requested a decision on the written record but later requested a hearing. On November 26, 2019, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 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. On January 30, 2020, we remanded the case to the Judge on a due process issue. In his first appeal, Applicant claimed he sent an email to Judge on October 18, 2019, never received a response to his email, and assumed that the record would remain open while he was unemployed. Applicant’s email of October 18, 2019, was not in the record. In our Remand, the Judge was asked to determine what occurred on October 18th and to take appropriate action in accordance with the Directive. In the Remand Decision of March 3, 2020, the Judge added Applicant’s email of October 18, 2019 to the record. This email merely updated the Judge on Applicant’s unemployment status. It neither requested the record remain open nor contained any proffer of additional evidence. On February 6, 2020, the Judge reopened the record to allow the parties to submit documents and arguments on the issue of whether Applicant’s assumption the record would remain open was unfounded or unreasonable. Both parties submitted responses. The Judge concluded that “[t]here were no discussions with Applicant during the hearing or after the hearing that could have led him to reasonably believe that the record would remain open beyond October 18, 2019" and noted he adhered to his previous decision. Decision at 4. Applicant appealed the Judge’s Remand Decision. Applicant’s current appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it indicates he remains unemployed and will have difficulty finding employment without a security clearance. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-13180 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 21, 2013).

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 case is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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