A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 17-01866.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Dec 10, 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 financial issues. The appeal was based on a claimed error regarding the applicant's age, which was found to be harmless and did not affect the outcome of the case.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's financial issues under Guideline F were significant enough to warrant denial of the security clearance.
- The applicant did not raise any other allegations of error that would affect the decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
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 issued
- 2017-07-26
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2018-10-05 Decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2018-12-10
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
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.
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: 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
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