CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-03921.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-03921.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03921.a1

Aug 13, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The Department of Defense initially denied the application, citing security concerns stemming from these financial matters.

Upon appeal, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. The Board noted that the applicant did not allege any harmful error committed by the Administrative Judge during the initial review process. The disqualifying conditions were raised under AG ¶ 20.

Ultimately, the applicant's security clearance was denied because the financial issues remained unresolved and posed a security risk, and no procedural errors were successfully argued on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 19, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 22, 2018Decision made by Administrative Judge Shari Dam.
Decision dateAug 13, 2018Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant raised 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 Administrative Judge. The Board's review is limited to allegations of harmful error, and since none were presented, the original decision stands.

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: 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

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 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