A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 16-00598.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 8, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to a lack of specificity in his appeal regarding alleged errors in the investigation of his debts. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, noting that the applicant did not allege harmful error, which is necessary for a successful appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal lacked sufficient specificity regarding the alleged errors in the investigation of debts.
- The applicant did not allege harmful error on the part of the Judge, which is required for the Board to overturn a decision.
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 issued
- 2016-08-09
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2017-12-01 Decision made by Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry.
- Decision date
- 2018-03-08 Board 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
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.
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 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
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