A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-02765.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 30, 2021 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the original judge, which limited their review authority.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the Judge, limiting the Board's review authority.
- The Board's review is restricted to allegations of harmful error, which were not present in this case.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impacts of an adverse decision.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2019-11-19
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2021-06-09
- Decision date
- 2021-08-30
Cite for
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority When No Harmful Error Is Alleged
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Impact of Adverse Decisions Not Considered in Review Process
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 filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal.
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: 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 sustainable. Adverse Decision Affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02765.a1 DATE: 08/30/2021 DATE: August 30, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) --------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-02765 ) ) 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 November 19, 2019, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—securityconcerns 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 9, 2021, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. He does highlight the negative impacts of an unfavorable decision. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impacts of an adverse decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01206 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2020). 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 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