CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-02365.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-02365.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-02365.a1

Jun 14, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The Appeal Board affirmed this denial.

The applicant's appeal did not allege any harmful error by the judge, which limited the scope of the Board's review. Specifically, the Board noted that the applicant failed to resolve her financial issues, which constituted a disqualifying condition under Guideline F1 and raised security concerns.

Ultimately, the applicant's security clearance was denied because the financial issues remained unresolved, and no procedural error was demonstrated in the appeal process.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 24, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 23, 2018
Decision dateJun 14, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Importance of Alleging Harmful Error for Successful 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 who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed the decision but did not raise any allegations of harmful error. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The appeal was based on a narrative statement rather than specific claims of error.

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: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a narrative statement about her efforts and plans to resolve her alleged debts. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-02365.a1 DATE: 06/14/2018 DATE: June 14, 2018 In Re: ---------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No.17-02365

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 August 24, 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 March 23, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., 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 her efforts and plans to resolve her alleged debts.1 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 1 Much of Applicant’s narrative is new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. See, Directive ¶ E3.1.29.