CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02765.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-02765.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02765.a1

Aug 30, 2021· 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 Board's decision was primarily based on the applicant's failure to allege any harmful error by the original administrative judge. Under the Board's procedures, their review authority is limited to addressing such allegations of harmful error. Since no such claims were made, the Board's ability to conduct a broader review was restricted.

Consequently, the Board found no basis to overturn the initial denial, which was rooted in disqualifying condition F.1 related to financial considerations. The security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impacts of an adverse decision.”
— ISCR Case No. 19-01206 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2020)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 19, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 9, 2021
Decision dateAug 30, 2021

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· 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 Board affirmed the decision, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error, making the denial of the security clearance sustainable.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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: 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 ) )

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 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