CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-01802.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-01802.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01802.a1

Apr 15, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to issues raised under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 20. The denial was affirmed by the Appeal Board.

The primary reason for the denial was the applicant's failure to allege any harmful error in the judge's initial decision. The Appeal Board's review authority is limited, and they cannot consider new evidence that was not presented during the original hearing.

Consequently, without an allegation of harmful error by the judge, and with no new evidence permissible for review, the Appeal Board upheld the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial 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 issuedJul 3, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 5, 2019Decision made by Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy.
Decision dateApr 15, 2019Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Limited Authority of the Appeal Board to Review Cases for Harmful Error
Importance of Alleging Harmful Error for Successful Appeals
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 Board reviewed the denial of a security clearance for the Applicant based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant did not raise any allegations of harmful error in the appeal. Consequently, the Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision denying the clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBraden M. Murphy — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, which is necessary for the Board to review the case.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
Charles C. Hale

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: 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: 18-01802.a1 DATE: 04/15/2019 DATE: April 15, 2019 In Re: ----------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-01802

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 3, 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 5, 2019, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy 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, but it does contain a document post-dating the Judge’s decision and assertions that are not in the record.1 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 F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 1 Applicant states that he does not believe the information in his appeal brief constitutes new evidence. Information not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration is “new evidence” that the Appeal Board cannot consider. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-00287 at 2, n.1 (App. Bd. Apr. 3, 2019).