CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-01360.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-01360.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01360.a1

Jun 10, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied a clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition F1.

The applicant appealed this denial, but the Appeal Board affirmed the original decision. The Board's review found no harmful error alleged by the applicant regarding the judge's initial determination. Furthermore, the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence during the appeal process.

Consequently, the judge's decision to deny the security clearance was upheld, and the applicant's appeal was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial 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 issuedMay 23, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 19, 2019Decision issued by Administrative Judge Shari Dam.
Decision dateJun 10, 2019Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error
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 denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant's appeal did not raise any allegations of harmful error, leading the Board to affirm the original decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the Appeal Board is limited to reviewing only those allegations. The appeal contained new evidence that could not be considered.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a document that is not in the record and a lengthy description of her financial history with several statements of fact that were not previously presented to DOHA. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-01360.a1 DATE: 6/10/2019 DATE: June 10, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) -------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-01360 ) ) 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 May 23, 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 19, 2019, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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. Rather, it contains a document that is not in the record and a lengthy description of her financial history with several statements of fact that were not previously presented to DOHA. 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