A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-05477.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Nov 6, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge, limiting the Board's review to the existing decision without new evidence.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge, which is necessary for the Board to review the case.
- The Board's authority is limited to cases where harmful error is claimed, which was not present in this appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The 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 issued
- 2014-12-08
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-08-11 Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher.
- Decision date
- 2017-11-06 Appeal affirmed.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Alleged
- Limitations on the Board's Review Authority
- Importance of Alleging Harmful Error for Successful Appeals
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
The appeal was filed by the Applicant seeking to overturn the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board found that the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge, leading to the affirmation of the denial.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is affirmed. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-05477.a1 DATE: 11/6/2017 DATE: November 6, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-05477
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 8, 2014, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On August 11 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a narrative statement in which Applicant seeks “to clarify [his] moral and legal obligations.” Appeal Brief at 1. He asks that the Board ”accept not [his] financial faults, but [his] moral obligation to protect and safeguard classified information and reconsider reinstating [his] security clearance.” Id. at 2. The Board cannot receive or consider any new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, the Board does not review a case de novo. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board