A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 17-03640.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 27, 2019 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to unresolved financial issues. The Appeal Board upheld the denial, stating that the applicant did not present any allegations of error that could be considered, as new evidence is not permitted in appeals.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not raise any allegations of error based on evidence that could be considered.
- The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2017-11-27
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2019-06-19
- Decision date
- 2019-08-27
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
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 Appeal Board affirmed the decision, stating that the Applicant did not raise any allegations of harmful error that could be considered, as new evidence was not permitted.
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: 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 ) )
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