CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-04044.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-04044.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-04044.a1

Nov 30, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant appealed the adverse decision, citing a typographical error in his application regarding a judgment amount and claiming a lack of preparation for his hearing.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, finding that the applicant did not demonstrate that the alleged typographical error influenced the decision. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented to suggest that the applicant's lack of preparation was due to government misconduct, nor did the applicant allege any harmful error by the judge.

The board concluded that the applicant failed to provide sufficient grounds to overturn the initial denial, which was based on disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20, with mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 21 not being applied. The security clearance was therefore denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's claims regarding the typographical error and lack of preparation were not substantiated.

Key Rule Quoted

“Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 4, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 24, 2015
Decision dateNov 30, 2015

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Evidence of Harmful Error
Importance of Substantiating Claims of Government Misconduct
Limitations on Appeal Based on Allegations of Harmful Error

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 after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge and acknowledged that the decision was warranted based on the record. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowFrancisco Mendez — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted no harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Applicant's claims regarding a typographical error and lack of preparation were not substantiated with evidence of harmful impact on the decision.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

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 failed to show that the adverse decision was influenced by a typographical error in his application. Neither is there evidence that Applicant’s self-described lack of preparation resulted from the conduct of Government officials. Applicant’s brief asserts no harmful error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-04044.a1 DATE: 11/30/2015 DATE: November 30, 2015 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-04044

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 February 4, 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 a hearing. On September 24, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant has not raised an issue of harmful error by the Judge. Indeed, he states that, given the record that was before him, the Judge had no choice but to issue an adverse decision. Applicant avers that a misstatement in his security clearance application (SCA) as to the amount of a judgment against him may have triggered the investigation in the case before us. Applicant had listed the amount of the judgment as $1,850,000 rather than the $18,500 that he meant to write. He also states that he was ill-prepared for the hearing. On the first point, there is no reason to believe that the Judge’s adverse decision was influenced in any way by Applicant’s typographical error in his SCA. On the second point, Applicant cites to no evidence that his level of preparation was a function of conduct by Government officials. Nor is there any proffer as to what he could have submitted had he been better prepared. He also does not draw our attention to anything in the record in support of this contention other than his typographical error. We do not exercise de novo review. Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board