A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-02010.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 30, 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 Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the original judge, and thus the decision was upheld without new evidence being considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the Judge.
- The Appeal Board's review was limited to the existing record without new evidence.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 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
- 2018-12-12
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2019-05-20 Decision issued by Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr.
- Decision date
- 2019-07-30 Appeal Board decision affirmed original denial.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Allegation
- Limitations of Appeal Board Review Process
- Importance of Existing Record in Appeal Decisions
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 themselves, did not allege any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial as there were no allegations of harmful error raised by the Applicant.
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 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-02010.a1 DATE: 07/30/2019 DATE: July 30, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 18-02010 ) ) 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 December 12, 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 May 20, 2019, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., 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 documents and assertions that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. 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.
Order
The Decision 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