CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00302.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00302.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00302.a1

Nov 16, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

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

The applicant appealed this decision, but the appeal was subsequently denied. The appeal document contained only a general request for reconsideration and did not assert any specific harmful error in the judge's original decision.

Because the applicant failed to identify any specific errors in the initial ruling, the adverse decision was affirmed, and the security clearance was ultimately denied.

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 issuedJun 14, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldAug 21, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran.
Decision dateNov 16, 2017Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Importance of Alleging Harmful Error for Successful Appeal
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority.

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 seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed but did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — 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 Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error. The appeal was based solely on a request for reconsideration without specific claims of error.

Appeal Board panel

Michael 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: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a request “for the Appeal Board to take a look at [his] case again.” Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-00302.a1 DATE: 11/16/2017 DATE: November 16, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00302

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 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 August 21, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant requested that his case be decided on the written record and then did not respond to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a request “for the Appeal Board to take a look at [his] case again.” 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. 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 F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board