A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 11-00533.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 26, 2012 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial concerns, specifically tax debts. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of his clearance, noting that he did not assert any harmful error in the judge's decision, which was based on the applicant's financial issues and lack of corroboration for his claims of progress in resolving those debts.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had unresolved tax debts that raised security concerns under Guideline F.
- The applicant did not provide corroboration for his claims of progress in resolving his financial issues.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2011-09-01
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2012-02-13
- Decision date
- 2012-04-26
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Importance of Asserting 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
The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance as there were no claims of 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 PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 11-00533.a1 DATE: 04/26/2012 DATE: April 26, 2012 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-00533
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 September 1, 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 February 13, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr. denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the 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 states simply that he is appealing the Judge’s decision and he makes reference to his favorable security history, the progress he is making in paying back taxes owed the IRS1, and the fact that losing his clearance would take away his current livelihood. 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. The Board does not review cases de novo. 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board
Footnotes
1 The Judge’s decision notes that the record contains no corroboration for such claims.