CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07724.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07724.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07724.a1

Apr 2, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition F.1, indicating that the applicant's financial issues raised security concerns.

The applicant appealed this adverse decision. However, the appeal was affirmed, and the denial was upheld because the applicant did not allege any harmful error on the part of the judge who made the initial determination.

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

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 8, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 29, 2017
Decision dateApr 2, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Allegation
Importance of Addressing Financial Issues in Clearance Applications
Guidance on the Limitations of Appeal Reviews by the Board.

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 after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge and requested reconsideration. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as no harmful error was claimed.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error by 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 original decision stands.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
William S. Fields

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: In his appeal brief, Applicant states that he does not believe the Judge did anything wrong, but that he is “basically throwing [himself] at the mercy of [the] Appeals Board to reconsider the Judge’s decision.” Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-07724.a1 DATE: 04/02/2018 DATE: April 2, 2018 In Re: ------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-07724

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 June 8, 2016, 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 December 29, 2017, after the hearings, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In his appeal brief, Applicant states that he does not believe the Judge did anything wrong, but that he is ‘basically throwing [himself] at the mercy of [the] Appeals Board to reconsider the Judge’s decision.” The Board does not review a case de novo. Its authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01845 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 12, 2018). Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board