A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-06436.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 19, 2016 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the initial decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal brief contained no assertions of harmful error.
- The Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision based on the lack of harmful error allegations.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 30 Criminal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review a case de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-01-26
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2016-07-12
- Decision date
- 2016-10-19
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
The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial and criminal conduct concerns. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant's appeal brief did not assert any harmful error. The appeal was therefore denied without further review.
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: 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
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