CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-02222.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-02222.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-02222.a1

Aug 27, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. The Board noted that the applicant did not allege any harmful error committed by the original judge. Consequently, the Board's review was strictly limited to the existing record and did not consider any new evidence.

Ultimately, the Appeal Board found no basis to overturn the initial decision, and the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 21, 2020
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJun 16, 2021Decision made by Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley.
Decision dateAug 27, 2021Appeal Board affirmed the decision.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Pro Se Representation in Security Clearance Cases

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 a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The Board's review was limited to the allegations made by the Applicant.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board's review is limited to such allegations.

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: 20-02222.a1 DATE: 08/27/2021 DATE: August 27, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 20-02222 ) ) 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 21, 2020, 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 decision on the written record. On June 16, 2021, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley 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. It does contain some documents that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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