CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00324.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-00324.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00324.a1

Jun 4, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Appeal Board affirmed this denial, noting the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the judge's initial decision.

The denial was specifically based on Disqualifying Condition F.1. The applicant's appeal did not challenge any of the judge's findings or rulings, and the Appeal Board did not consider new evidence presented during the appeal process. Consequently, the denial of the security clearance was upheld.

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 issuedFeb 13, 2018
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMar 18, 2019Decision issued by Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran.
Decision dateJun 4, 2019Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Allegations
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Prohibition Against Considering New Evidence on Appeal

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 her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not raise any allegations of harmful error in her appeal. The decision of the Judge denying the security clearance stands.

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 did not allege any harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to the errors claimed by the appealing party.

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: 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-00324.a1 DATE: 06/04/2019 DATE: June 4, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ----------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-00324 ) ) 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 February 13, 2018, 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 March 18, 2019, 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 Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. More specifically, she has not challenged any of the Judge’s rulings, findings of fact, or conclusions. Her brief, however, does contain assertions that are not in the record, including that she recently filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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 E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board