CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02397.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-02397.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02397.a1

May 6, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on disqualifying conditions outlined in Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 19, with no mitigating conditions from AG ¶ 20 being applied.

The Appeal Board affirmed the adverse decision, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge. Furthermore, the Board could not consider new evidence that had not been presented during the initial hearing. The Board also clarified that the adverse impact of an unfavorable decision on the applicant is not a relevant factor in determining clearance eligibility.

Ultimately, the applicant's appeal was unsuccessful, and the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20notedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 28, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 19, 2020Decision on written record.
Decision dateMay 6, 2020Appeal decision.

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Alleged
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Relevance of New Evidence Not Considered by the Judge

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 Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in his appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Robinson Gales — 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 on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the decision was sustainable based on the existing record.

Standard of review applied

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

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: 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. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02397.a1 DATE: 05/06/2020

DATE: May 6, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ---------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-02397 ) ) 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 August 28, 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 19, 2020, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales 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. His brief does contain assertions and a document that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also asserts that his security clearance is needed for him to perform his job. However, the adverse impact of an unfavorable decision is not a relevant consideration in evaluating clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-10758 at 2 (App. Bd. May 21, 2013).

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