CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02113.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-02113.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02113.a1

Feb 25, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) by the Department of Defense. The denial was based on unresolved financial issues.

The applicant appealed the decision, arguing that the judge in the initial ruling had committed harmful error. However, the appeal board found no evidence of such error and affirmed the denial. The board emphasized that the government is not required to wait for adverse conduct to occur before denying a security clearance.

Ultimately, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the judge's initial decision contained harmful error, leading to the final denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“It is well established that the Government need not wait until a person has engaged in conduct adverse to the United States before it can deny a security clearance.”
— ISCR Case No. 17-04278 at 3 (App. Bd. May 23, 2019)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 26, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 8, 2020
Decision dateFeb 25, 2020

Cite For

Government's Authority to Deny Clearance Without Adverse Conduct Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations
Limitations of Appeal Board's Review to Allegations of Harmful Error

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 based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that he posed no threat to national security and that there was no evidence of espionage or treason. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that he is not a threat to national security and noted no evidence of espionage or treasonable activities.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Government is not required to wait for adverse conduct before denying a security clearance.

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: It is well established that the Government need not wait until a person has engaged in conduct adverse to the United States before it can deny a security clearance. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02113.a1 DATE: 02/25/2020

DATE: February 25, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 19-02113 ) ) 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 26, 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 requested a hearing. On January 8, 2020, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant says that he is not a “threat to national security.” He notes no evidence was presented of “espionage or treasonable activities[.]” However, it is well established that the Government need not wait until a person has engaged in conduct adverse to the United States before it can deny a security clearance. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-04278 at 3 (App. Bd. May 23, 2019). The Board does not review a case 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is sustainable.

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