CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-02997.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-02997.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02997.a1

Oct 4, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.1, indicating significant financial concerns.

The applicant appealed the decision; however, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. The Board's review is specifically limited to allegations of harmful error made by the original judge. In this case, the applicant did not allege any such error.

Instead of alleging harmful error, the applicant focused on the steps he was taking to resolve his financial issues. Because the Appeal Board's scope is restricted to reviewing for harmful error, and no such error was alleged, the denial of the security clearance was upheld.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial 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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 9, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 15, 2019Decision issued by Chief Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan
Decision dateOct 4, 2019Appeal decision affirmed by the Appeal Board

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Absence of Harmful Error Allegations in Appeal Process

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 based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed the decision but did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance as there were no claims of harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowErin C. Hogan — 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 brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, and since none were raised, the original decision stands.

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: Applicant’s brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it explains that he is taking action to resolve his financial problems. 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-02997.a1 DATE: 10/04/2019

DATE: October 4, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ---------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-02997 ) ) 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 January 9, 2019, 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 July 15, 2019, after considering the record, Chief Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it explains that he is taking action to resolve his financial problems. 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