A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 17-01008.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 12, 2019 · 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 Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any error by the original judge and that new evidence submitted could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not raise any allegations of error against the Judge.
- The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence not presented to the original Judge.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
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 issued
- 2017-05-22
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2018-11-19 Decision made by Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola.
- Decision date
- 2019-02-12 Appeal Board decision.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Pro Se Representation in Security Clearance Cases
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 after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant's appeal did not raise any allegations of error, leading the Board to affirm the Judge's decision.
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: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegations of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-01008.a1 DATE: 02/12/2019 DATE: February 12, 2019 In Re: -------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-01008
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 May 22, 2017, 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 November 19, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegations of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E.3.1.29. His brief also explains the reasons for his financial difficulties and his efforts to resolve them. The Board does not review cases 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. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance 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: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board