CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-01176.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-01176.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-01176.a1

Aug 4, 2016· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F1.

The applicant appealed the decision, discussing his financial issues and efforts to resolve them. However, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial because its review is limited to allegations of harmful error by the judge, and the applicant did not assert any such error in his appeal.

Consequently, the Appeal Board found no basis to overturn the initial denial, and the applicant's security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.32

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 28, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 1, 2016Decision made by Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul
Decision dateAug 4, 2016Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed but did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial as there were no claims of harmful error made in the appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMartin H. Mogul — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, and since none were presented, the Judge's denial of the security clearance was upheld.

Appeal Board panel

William S. Fields
Jean E. Smallin
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: Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. He makes assertions about the conditions that resulted in his financial problems and his efforts to resolve those problems. The Judge discussed those matters in his decision. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-01176.a1 DATE: 08/04/2016 DATE: August 4, 2016 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-01176

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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 May 28, 2015, DoD 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On June 1, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul 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. Rather, he makes assertions about the conditions that resulted in his financial problems and his efforts to resolve those problems. The Judge discussed those matters in his decision.

The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Our 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. In the absence of such an allegation, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.

Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member , Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board