CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-02963.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-02963.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02963.a1

Dec 12, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

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

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20. The applicant did not allege any harmful error by the original judge in his appeal, which significantly limited the scope of the Appeal Board's review.

Because the Appeal Board's authority is restricted to cases where harmful error is alleged, and no such allegations were made, the Board affirmed the original decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”
— ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 31, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 12, 2019Decision on written record.
Decision dateDec 12, 2019

Cite For

Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error in Appeals
Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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 a denial of a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial considerations. The Applicant, representing himself, argued that the upgrade to a Top Secret clearance was unnecessary and did not allege any specific harmful error. The Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, stating it could not review the case de novo and found no harmful error alleged.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGina L. Marine — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

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 Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board is limited to reviewing only those claims. The Board also noted that it cannot consider new evidence or the impact of the decision on the Applicant.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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: In his brief, Applicant notes that steps taken to upgrade his security clearance to the Top Secret level were unnecessary, and he could have performed his duties with his prior Secret clearance. The Appeal Board, however, has no authority to adjudicate whether a particular applicant needs a security clearance or what level of clearance a particular applicant needs. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02963.a1 DATE: 12/12/2019

DATE: December 12, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) -------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-02963 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

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 December 31, 2018, 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 September 12, 2019, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gina L. Marine denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains assertions that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In his brief, Applicant notes that steps taken to upgrade his security clearance to the Top Secret level were unnecessary, and he could have performed his duties with his prior Secret clearance. The Appeal Board, however, has no authority to adjudicate whether a particular applicant needs a security clearance or what level of clearance a particular applicant needs. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 97-0016 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 31, 1997). Applicant further indicates the Judge’s adverse decision has had a negative impact on him. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015). Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. 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.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board