A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 17-02365.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 14, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, 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 her appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant failed to resolve her financial issues, which raised security concerns under Guideline F.
- The appeal did not allege any harmful error by the judge, limiting the Board's review.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2017-08-24
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2018-03-23
- Decision date
- 2018-06-14
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
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.
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: 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
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.