A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-00324.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 4, 2019 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the judge's decision and that new evidence could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege any harmful error against the judge's decision.
- The appeal did not challenge any findings or rulings made by the judge.
- New evidence presented by the applicant was not considered by the Appeal Board.
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
- 2018-02-13
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2019-03-18 Decision issued by Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran.
- Decision date
- 2019-06-04 Appeal 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
The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not raise any 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 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 ) )
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