CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-03640.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-03640.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-03640.a1

Aug 27, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The initial denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F1.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the Appeal Board upheld the denial. The Board determined that the applicant did not present any allegations of error that could be considered, as the appeal process prohibits the introduction of new evidence. Consequently, the Board could not review any new information the applicant might have wished to present.

The denial was ultimately sustained because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reversible error in the original decision, and the Board was unable to consider additional evidence related to the financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 27, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 19, 2019
Decision dateAug 27, 2019

Cite For

Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
Requirements for Alleging Error in Security Clearance Cases
Upholding of Denials Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision, stating that the Applicant did not raise any specific harmful error that could be considered, as new evidence was not permitted.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGregg A. Cervi — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant raised no specific harmful error in his appeal.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not raise any specific harmful error that could be considered on appeal. The Board is limited to reviewing only those errors alleged by the appealing party.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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: In his appeal brief, Applicant makes assertions that are not contained in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. His brief raises no allegation of error that is based on evidence that we can consider. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-03640.a1 DATE: 08/27/2019 DATE: August 27, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ----------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 17-03640 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

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 November 27, 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 hearing. On June 19, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi 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 makes assertions that are not contained in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. His brief raises no allegation of error that is based on evidence that we can consider. 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 an allegation of error that we can consider, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is affirmed.

ORDER

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