Loading case…

ISCR 15-06575.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2017) · CASE

ISCR Case 15-06575.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-06575.a1

Oct 19, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a failure to provide necessary documentation. Representing himself, the applicant did not submit a response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) despite receiving adequate notice.

Upon appeal, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. The Board noted that its authority is limited to cases where harmful error by the judge is alleged, and the applicant did not make such an allegation in his appeal. Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide any evidence to substantiate claims of harmful error.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, as the applicant did not meet the requirements to address the disqualifying conditions raised under AG ¶ 20 or demonstrate any procedural error in the initial decision.

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.”

Procedural posture

SOR issuedJun 14, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 25, 2017Decision based on written record.
Decision dateOct 19, 2017

Cite for

Limited Authority of the Appeal Board in Reviewing Cases Without Allegations of Harmful Error
Importance of Submitting Evidence in Response to the FORM
Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Due Process Claims

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 was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error by the Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. 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 appeal brief contains no assertion 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, and the appeal did not present a prima facie case of due process violation.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperNo de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan (Chair)
William S. Fields
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: 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. This decision is sustainable because Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-06575.a1 DATE: 10/19/2017 DATE: October 19, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-06575

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 June 14, 2016, 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 25, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In his appeal brief, Applicant states: . . . I am not in favor of the outcome because I have concluded that some old evidence that supports my case wasn’t successfully submitted causing the outcome of my case to result in denial. I am also cognizant that my case was also in the hands of different employees hence not getting individual attention on the mentioned case therefore I am requesting an appeal.1 Applicant’s appeal brief does not contain a copy of the evidence that he claims was not considered. He has not identified the nature of that evidence, who submitted it, when it was submitted, or to whom it was submitted. Additionally, we note that Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) was mailed to Applicant on September 15, 2016. The forwarding letter advised Applicant that the FORM consisted of relevant material that will be submitted to an Administrative Judge so that a security clearance determination could be made in his case. Applicant received the FORM on September 26, 2016, and was given 30 days from its receipt to submit any objections or additional information that he wished to be considered. The FORM also advised that, “[i]fyou do not file any objections or submit any additional information . . . your case will be assigned to an Administrative Judge for a determination based solely on this File of Relevant Material.” [Emphasis added]. FORM at 3. Applicant received adequate notice that, if he wanted the Judge to consider matters beyond those contained in the FORM, he needed to submit those matters. Applicant did not submit a response to the FORM. From our review of the record, we conclude that Applicant has failed to establish a prima facie case that he was denied due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-02933 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 23, 2016). The Board does not review a case 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. This decision is sustained because Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harm4ful error on the part of the Judge. 1 Regarding the second quoted sentence, the Board construes Applicant’s argument as raising a complaint that too many people are involved in his security clearance adjudication. The Board’s authority is limited as set out in Directive ¶¶ E3.1.32-E3.1.35. The second quoted sentence raises matters that are not within the Board’s authority.

ORDER

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