CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-01778.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-01778.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01778.a1

Oct 11, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F1.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was affirmed, and the denial upheld. The applicant did not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error in the initial decision. Additionally, the appeal included new evidence that the board could not consider, as its authority is limited to reviewing allegations of harmful error.

Because no harmful error was asserted by the applicant, and the appeal board found no issues warranting further review, the security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 26, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 23, 2019
Decision dateOct 11, 2019

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed the decision but did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Board affirmed the denial as the applicant's submission did not raise any issues for review.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board's review is limited to such allegations.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. 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 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 ) )

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 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