A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 17-02232.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Dec 12, 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 unresolved financial issues. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge in his appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had unresolved financial issues that raised security concerns under Guideline F.
- The applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge in his appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2017-07-10
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2018-10-01
- Decision date
- 2018-12-12
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Lack of Allegations of Harmful Error 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 who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant appealed the decision but did not raise any allegations of error. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision denying the 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: 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-02232.a1 DATE: 12/12/2018 DATE: December 12, 2018 In Re: --------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-02232
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 10, 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 hearing. On October 1, 2018, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry 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 allegations of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains an update of actions Applicant has taken to resolve his debts since the hearing.
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