CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00598.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00598.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00598.a1

Mar 8, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was affirmed by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Appeal Board.

The Board upheld the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant's appeal lacked the necessary specificity regarding alleged errors in the investigation of his debts. Crucially, the applicant did not claim that the Administrative Judge committed harmful error, which is a prerequisite for the Board to overturn a decision.

Consequently, the Board found no basis to reverse the initial denial, and the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 9, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldDec 1, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry.
Decision dateMar 8, 2018Board affirmed the decision.

Cite For

Insufficient Specificity in Appeal Statements Under Guideline F
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error in Security Clearance Appeals
Limitations of the Board's Review Authority in Security Clearance Cases

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 who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant, representing himself, claimed that the denial was wrong due to an error in the investigation of his debts. The Board found that the applicant did not provide sufficient specificity in his appeal and did not allege any harmful error, leading to the affirmation of the Administrative Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed the denial of his security clearance was wrong due to an error in the investigation of some of his debts.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error and his appeal lacked sufficient specificity to address the claimed error.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan
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: Applicant’s statement lacks sufficient specificity for the Board to address the assignment of error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-00598.a1 DATE: 03/08/2018 DATE: March 08, 2018 In Re: ----------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00598

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 August 9, 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 decision on the written record. On December 1, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant requested that his case be decided on the written record and then did not respond to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). In his appeal brief, Applicant states only that “. . . denial of [his] security clearance is wrong due to an error in the investigation of some of [his] debts.” Applicant’s statement lacks sufficient specificity for the Board to address the assignment of error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05920 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan.8, 2016). Additionally, the Board has no authority to rule on the manner in which officials conduct clearance investigations. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04186 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 28, 2015). 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. 15-04736 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 Member, 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