Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

ISCR Case No. 09-07563.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Dec 13, 2011 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The DOHA denied the application due to unresolved financial issues, and the Appeal Board affirmed the decision, noting that the adverse impact of the decision on the applicant's job and family was not a relevant consideration.

Why the applicant was denied

  • The applicant failed to resolve financial issues that raised security concerns under Guideline F.
  • The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, stating that adverse impact on the applicant's job and family is not relevant to clearance eligibility.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

  • AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised

Key rule quoted

“The adverse impact on applicant of a decision is not relevant consideration in determining clearance eligibility.”
ISCR Case No. 10-03757 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2011)

Procedural posture

SOR issued
2011-04-05
Answer filed
Hearing held
2011-09-29
Decision date
2011-12-13

Cite for

  • Relevance of Adverse Impact on Employment in Clearance Decisions
  • Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
  • Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding Harmful Error Allegations

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 from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the denial would adversely affect his job and his sick mother. The Board affirmed the AJ's decision, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

Synopsis

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: The adverse impact on applicant of a decision is not relevant consideration in determining clearance eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-07563.a1 DATE: 12/13/2011 DATE: December 13, 2011 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-07563

Appearances

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On April 5, 2011, DOHA 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 September 29, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge James F. Duffy denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant argues that if he does not receive a clearance, he will lose his job, and probably not be able to find another one. Such a circumstance would adversely impact not only him, but also his sick mother who is dependent of him for her care. Accordingly, Applicant asks that the Appeal Board allow him to keep his clearance based on the totality of his situation. The Appeal Board has previously noted that the adverse impact an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not deemed a relevant consideration in evaluating his clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-03757 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2011). Moreover, it 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 denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jean S. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board