CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00852 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-00852denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-00852

Oct 26, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance by the Department of Defense under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). This denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F1.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. The Board noted that the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the original judge. Additionally, new evidence submitted by the applicant after the initial decision was not considered by the Appeal Board during the review process.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 6, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 13, 2021Decision on the written record.
Decision dateOct 26, 2021Appeal decision.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Prohibition of New Evidence Consideration on Appeal
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority.

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 denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board found that the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, leading to the affirmation of the lower decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip J. Katauskas — 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 makes 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 Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal.

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

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

----------------------- )

ISCR Case No. 20-00852

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. It does contain assertions and documents that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. Of note, the documents submitted postdate the Judge’s decision. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse Decision is Affirmed. CASE NO: 20-00852.a1 DATE: 10/26/2021 Date: October 26, 2021

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 November 6, 2020, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of DoD

Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On July 13, 2021, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip J. Katauskas denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. It does contain assertions and documents that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. Of note, the documents submitted postdate the Judge’s decision. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. 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 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