CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-01866.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-01866.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-01866.a1

Dec 10, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. The applicant's appeal focused on a claimed error regarding his age, which was determined to be harmless and did not impact the final decision.

The denial was based on the severity of the financial issues, which met the disqualifying condition F1. No other allegations of error were raised by the applicant that would have altered the outcome.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied due to the unresolved financial considerations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 26, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 5, 2018Decision on the written record.
Decision dateDec 10, 2018

Cite For

Harmless Error in Age Determination Not Affecting Case Outcome
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Financial Considerations as a Basis for Security Clearance Denial Under Guideline F

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 was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant claimed the Judge made a factual error regarding his age, which the Board found to be harmless. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGregg A. Cervi — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
The Judge erred in finding the Applicant was 58 years old when he was actually five years younger.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's error regarding the Applicant's age was harmless and did not affect the outcome of the case. The Applicant did not raise any other allegations of harmful error.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

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

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: In his appeal brief, Applicant stated the Judge erred in finding he was 58 years old when he was actually five years younger. This was a harmless error because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-01866.a1 DATE: 12/10/2018 DATE: December 10, 2018 In Re: --------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-01866

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 July 26, 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 October 5, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In his appeal brief, Applicant stated the Judge erred in finding he was 58 years old when he was actually five years younger. This was a harmless error because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-15184 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2013). Applicant’s appeal brief raises no other allegations of error on the part of the Judge. However, it does contain a number of documents and assertions that are not in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board