CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-02954 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-02954denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-02954

Oct 19, 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 review was limited to the existing record, as the applicant did not introduce new evidence or allege any harmful error by the original judge. Consequently, the Board found no basis to overturn the initial decision.

The denial was based on disqualifying conditions outlined in AG ¶ 20, which the applicant failed to mitigate. The Appeal Board's decision to deny the clearance was final, upholding the original determination based on the presented financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 31, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 10, 2021decision on the written record
Decision dateOct 19, 2021

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error in Appeals

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 their request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in their appeal. The Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge as sustainable due to the lack of harmful error allegations.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

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, and the Board's review is limited to such allegations.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

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

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

------------------------ )

ISCR Case No. 20-02954

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 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 is Affirmed. CASE NO. 20-02954 DATE: 10/19/2021 Date: October 19, 2021

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 December 31, 2020, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of DoD

Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On August 10, 2021, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 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. It does contain assertions and 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