CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01542.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01542.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01542.a1

Jun 1, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition F1.

The applicant appealed this denial, but the Appeal Board affirmed the original decision. The Board noted that the applicant's appeal brief did not assert any harmful error by the administrative judge who made the initial determination. Furthermore, the applicant did not present any new evidence for the Board to consider, as the Board is precluded from reviewing evidence not introduced during the original hearing.

Consequently, based on the existing record and the lack of asserted error or new evidence, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review a case de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 13, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 6, 2020Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateJun 1, 2020

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations on New Evidence in Appeal
Sustainability of Original Judge's Decision Without Harmful Error Claims

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 was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Appeal Board found that the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision, leading to the affirmation of the denial.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the appeal contained no new evidence that could be considered.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael 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 appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents that were already included in the record and proposals for prospective actions by the Applicant in part relying on documentation he himself has not received. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01542.a1 DATE: 06/01/2020 DATE: June 1, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 19-01542 ) ) 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 June 13, 2019, 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 February 6, 2020 after considering the record, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents that were already included in the record and proposals for prospective actions by the Applicant in part relying on documentation he himself has not received. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

The Board does not review a case 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is sustainable.

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