A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-00235.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 30, 2019 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal was denied as the applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge and introduced new assertions not previously considered, which the Appeal Board could not review.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not raise any allegations of harmful error by the Judge.
- The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence or assertions not previously submitted.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 16 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board does not have authority to consider such matters.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2018-04-10
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2019-04-25
- Decision date
- 2019-07-30
Cite for
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence
- Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error in Appeals
- Impact of Financial Considerations on Security Clearance Decisions
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 her request for a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline E and Guideline F. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant raised no allegations of harmful error in her appeal.
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 E; Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. It does contain some assertions that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-00235.a1 DATE: 07/30/2019 DATE: July 30, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ---------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-00235 ) ) 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 April 10, 2018, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On April 25, 2019, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., 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 allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. It does contain some assertions that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant indicates that denial of her security clearance will have a negative effect on her and that she requires no access to classified information to perform her job. The Appeal Board does not have authority to consider such matters. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00508 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jan. 23, 2015). Applicant repeats claims of having been a victim of identity theft. However, the Judge made findings about her claims. 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.
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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