A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-02397.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 6, 2020 · 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 a lack of harmful error allegations against the Judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the adverse decision, noting that the applicant did not present new evidence or relevant considerations for clearance eligibility.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error on the part of the Judge.
- The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence not presented to the Judge.
- The adverse impact of an unfavorable decision is not a relevant consideration for clearance eligibility.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsnoted
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review a case de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2019-08-28
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2020-02-19 Decision on written record.
- Decision date
- 2020-05-06 Appeal 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
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.
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 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 ) )
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