CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00020.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-00020.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00020.a1

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

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance primarily due to financial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The initial decision also cited Guideline E (Personal Conduct).

The applicant did not raise any specific allegations of error against the judge's decision. Consequently, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting the absence of challenges to the judge's findings.

The denial was based on disqualifying conditions raised under AG ¶ 19, specifically related to the applicant's financial history. The Appeal Board's review confirmed the validity of the initial denial, resulting in the applicant being denied the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 19, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 17, 2018Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateOct 19, 2018Appeal Board affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Error Allegations
Importance of Raising Legal Errors in Appeals
Withdrawal of Allegations Under Guideline E

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 concerns under Guideline E and Guideline F. The Applicant did not raise any allegations of error against the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not raise any allegations of error against the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The appeal was based solely on a narrative of the Applicant's financial situation and included new evidence that could not be considered.

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 E; Guideline F DIGEST: Because Applicant has not raised an allegation of error on the part of the Judge, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-00020.a1 DATE: 10/18/2018 DATE: October 19, 2018 In Re: ---------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-00020

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 January 19, 2018, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).1 Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On August 17, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch 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 financial situation and his efforts to pay his debts. His brief also contains a document that was not previously submitted 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 1 In the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Department Counsel withdrew the sole Guideline E allegation.