A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-01778.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 11, 2019 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, and the appeal board found no issues warranting review.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error.
- The appeal included new evidence that could not be considered by the board.
- The board's authority to review is limited to allegations of harmful error.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“Our authority to review cases is limited to those in which the appealing party alleges that the Judge committed harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2018-07-26
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2019-07-23
- Decision date
- 2019-10-11
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Asserted
- Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
- Authority of the Appeal Board to Review Based on Harmful Error Allegations
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 himself, did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial as the applicant did not raise any issues for review.
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: Applicant’s submission on appeal includes a copy of his written response to interrogatories that the DoD Consolidated Adjudications Facility propounded to him. This document is included in the record in Government Exhibit 3. The appeal submission also includes documents not contained in the record, new evidence which we cannot consider. Applicant’s brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. We do not review cases de novo. Our authority to review cases is limited to those in which the appealing party alleges that the Judge committed harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-01778.a1 DATE: 10/11/2019 DATE: October 11, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) -------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-01778
) ) 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 July 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 hearing. On July 23, 2019, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s submission on appeal includes a copy of his written response to interrogatories that the DoD Consolidated Adjudications Facility propounded to him. This document is included in the record in Government Exhibit 3. The appeal submission also includes documents not contained in the record, new evidence which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant’s brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. We do not review cases de novo. Our authority to review cases is limited to those in which the appealing party alleges that the Judge committed harmful error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. See ISCR Case No. 17-03640 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 27, 2019). Because Applicant has not raised an issue that we are authorized to consider, 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