CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-03184.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-03184.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03184.a1

May 23, 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 based on Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the denial was affirmed. The appeal found no harmful error alleged by the applicant regarding the judge's initial decision. Furthermore, the adverse impact of losing the security clearance was deemed irrelevant to the evaluation of the applicant's eligibility.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“the adverse impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a relevant or material consideration in evaluating security clearance eligibility.”
— ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 15, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 9, 2018
Decision dateMay 23, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Irrelevance of Personal Impact in Security Clearance Evaluations
Lack of Harmful Error Allegations as Grounds for Appeal

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 raise any allegations of harmful error in the appeal. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision to deny the clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowWilford H. Ross — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge. The appeal contained a narrative of efforts to resolve debts but did not meet the threshold for harmful error review.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Charles C. Hale
James F. Duffy

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 appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-03184.a1 DATE: 05/23/2018 DATE: May 23, 2018 In Re: ------------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No.16-03184

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 15, 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 March 9, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a narrative statement about his efforts to resolve the debts. It also contains new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, Applicant noted that losing his security clearance has had a negative impact on him and his family. However, the adverse impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a relevant or material consideration in evaluating security clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015). The Board does not review cases de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board