CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-02845.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-02845.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02845.a1

Jul 3, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance primarily due to financial considerations under Guideline F. Although the applicant also faced concerns regarding alcohol consumption under Guideline G, the ruling on that guideline was favorable, indicating it did not contribute to the denial.

The denial stemmed from the application of Disqualifying Condition F.1, which addresses financial issues. While Mitigating Condition F.2 was considered, it was ultimately insufficient to overcome the concerns. The applicant's appeal was denied because he did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision regarding the financial issues.

Consequently, the adverse decision was affirmed due to the absence of claims of harmful error concerning the financial concerns, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's good-faith efforts to correct financial problems were not sufficient to mitigate the concerns.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 9, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 24, 2017
Decision dateJul 3, 2017

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Claims
Rejection of Mitigating Conditions Based on Insufficient Evidence of Financial Recovery
Guidance on the Appeal Process Regarding Harmful Error Assertions.

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline G and Guideline F. The Board affirmed the denial as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision regarding the financial concerns, only stating efforts to correct financial issues.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline GGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge regarding the Guideline F security concerns.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error regarding the Judge's findings on Guideline F.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
William S. Fields

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 G; Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge regarding the Guideline F security concerns. Rather, it contains a brief statement by the Applicant that he has made a good-faith effort to correct his financial problems. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-02845.a1 DATE: 07/03/2017 DATE: July 3, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-02845

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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 9, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On March 24, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 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. The Judge resolved the Guideline G allegations in Applicant’s favor. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge regarding the Guideline F security concerns. Rather, it contains a brief statement by the Applicant that he has made a good- faith effort to correct his financial problems. We do not review a case de novo. Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01734 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Jan 19, 2017). Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board