CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-03190.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-03190.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-03190.a1

Oct 19, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Appeal Board affirmed this denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any error in the original decision.

This lack of specific allegations limited the Board's review strictly to the existing record from the initial denial. Consequently, the Board found no basis to overturn the original decision, which had identified disqualifying condition F.1.

The denial was therefore upheld, as the applicant failed to present any arguments challenging the initial determination that his financial considerations posed an unacceptable security risk.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 30, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 13, 2018
Decision dateOct 19, 2018

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Importance of Alleging Error for Successful Appeal

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 seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant did not raise any allegations of error in the appeal. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision denying the clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Board's review is limited to the errors raised by the appealing party, and since no such errors were presented, the original decision stands.

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: Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-03190.a1 DATE: 10/19/2018 DATE: October 19, 2018 In Re: ----------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-03190

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 October 30, 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 August 13, 2018, after the hearing, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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 error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a narrative statement about his efforts to resolve his financial problems and information that he did not previously submit to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. 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: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board