CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-07563.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-07563.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-07563.a1

Dec 13, 2011· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The DOHA initially denied the application, citing the applicant's failure to resolve these issues, which raised security concerns.

The applicant appealed this decision. However, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial, reiterating that the financial issues remained unresolved. The Board also explicitly stated that the adverse impact of the denial on the applicant's job and family, while potentially significant, was not a relevant factor in determining security clearance eligibility.

Therefore, the security clearance was ultimately denied based on the applicant's failure to mitigate the financial considerations outlined in Guideline F, as per Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedApr 5, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 29, 2011
Decision dateDec 13, 2011

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied 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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJames F. Duffy — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the adverse decision would negatively impact his job and his sick mother.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the AJ's decision as the applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the adverse impact of the decision on the applicant was not a relevant consideration for clearance eligibility.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean S. Smallin
William S. Fields

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 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

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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