A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-01802.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 15, 2019 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to failure to allege harmful error in the judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, emphasizing the limited scope of their review authority.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge.
- The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence not presented in the original hearing.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
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 issued
- 2018-07-03
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2019-03-05 Decision made by Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy.
- Decision date
- 2019-04-15 Appeal 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
The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not raise any allegations of harmful error. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, which were not present in this case.
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: 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
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).