A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-07724.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 2, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's financial issues raised security concerns under Guideline F.
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge, leading to the affirmation of the adverse decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-06-08
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-12-29
- Decision date
- 2018-04-02
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
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.
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: 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
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