CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-06436.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-06436.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-06436.a1

Oct 19, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant, representing himself, appealed the initial denial.

The Administrative Judge's decision to deny the clearance was affirmed by the Appeal Board. This was due to the applicant's appeal brief containing no assertions of harmful error in the initial decision. The Appeal Board found no basis to overturn the denial given the absence of such allegations.

Specifically, disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19 and AG ¶ 30 were raised in relation to the applicant's financial history and criminal conduct. The final outcome was a denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review a case de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 26, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 12, 2016
Decision dateOct 19, 2016

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Rejection of Appeal Based on Procedural Grounds

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 concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant appealed but did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDavid M. White — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's brief makes no assertions of harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the appeal. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, and without such claims, the decision stands as rendered.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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 brief makes no assertions of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-06436.a1 DATE: 10/19/2016 DATE: October 19, 2016 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-06436

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 January 26, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On July 12, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge David M. White 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 contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. It merely states that he is appealing the Judge’s decision and provides a telephone number for obtaining further information. The Board 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. Because Applicant has not raised such an allegation, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board