CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-03003.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-03003.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-03003.a1

Feb 9, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application was denied under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The applicant, representing himself, initially faced a denial from the Department of Defense due to financial issues.

Upon appeal, the denial was upheld because the applicant failed to specifically identify any harmful error in the initial decision. The adverse decision was based on the financial concerns outlined in Guideline F, specifically under Adjudicative Guideline paragraph 20.

Ultimately, the applicant's request for a security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Our authority to review cases is limited to those in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error.”
— ISCR Case No. 15-08349 (App. Bd. Dec. 4, 2017)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 23, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 31, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley.
Decision dateFeb 9, 2018Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Failure to Specify Harmful Error in Appeal Process
Affirmation of Adverse Decision Based on Financial Considerations
Limitations of Review Authority in Security Clearance 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed, but failed to specify any harmful errors in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant failed to raise an issue of harmful error with specificity.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not raise any specific harmful error. The appeal was limited to the issues presented by the Applicant, which did not meet the threshold for review.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
Charles C. Hale

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 raise an issue of harmful error with specificity. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-03003.a1 DATE: 02/09/2018 DATE: February 9, 2018 In Re: ------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-03003

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 November 23, 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 decision on the written record. On October 31, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley 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 with specificity. He states that he has worked hard to address his financial problems and requests that we review the file and reconsider the Judge’s adverse decision. Our authority to review cases is limited to those in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error. We do not review a case de novo. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08349 (App. Bd. Dec. 4, 2017).

ORDER

The Decision 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: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board