A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 16-03921.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 13, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The Department of Defense denied the application due to unresolved financial issues, and the Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's financial issues were unresolved and raised security concerns under Guideline F.
- The applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge in the appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2017-01-19
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2018-05-22 Decision made by Administrative Judge Shari Dam.
- Decision date
- 2018-08-13 Appeal affirmed by the Board.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Absence of Harmful Error Allegations in Appeals
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 who was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed but did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance as there were no allegations of harmful error.
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: The Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-03921.a1 DATE: 08/13/2018
DATE: August 13, 2018 In Re: --------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-03921
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 January 19, 2017, 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 May 22, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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 the circumstances that caused his financial problems and his efforts to resolve them. 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