A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-01182.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 12, 2019 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The Appeal Board upheld the denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any errors in the original decision and that new evidence could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not raise any allegations of error in the appeal.
- The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence not presented to the Administrative Judge.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2018-06-26
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2018-12-03 Decision made by Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera.
- Decision date
- 2019-02-12 Appeal decision date.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Importance of Alleging Error for Successful 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 involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant, representing themselves, did not raise any allegations of error in their appeal. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision denying the clearance due to the lack of harmful error allegations.
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: 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: 18-01182.a1 DATE: 02/12/2019 DATE: February 12, 2019 In Re: -------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-01182
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 June 26, 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 December 3, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera 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 allegations of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E.3.1.29.
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 F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board