CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05477.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-05477.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05477.a1

Nov 6, 2017· 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 the applicant's financial history, specifically citing Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20.

The applicant appealed the decision; however, the appeal was affirmed, and the denial upheld. The Board's review authority is limited to cases where an applicant alleges harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. In this instance, the applicant did not claim any such error.

Consequently, the Board could not introduce new evidence or conduct a broader review, as its scope was restricted to the existing record and the absence of an alleged harmful error. The security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedDec 8, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 11, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher.
Decision dateNov 6, 2017Appeal 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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 in the Administrative Judge's decision. Consequently, the Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — 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 harmful error on the part of 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 Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, and since none were made, the original decision stands.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
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 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

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 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