A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-00852
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 26, 2021 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) after the Department of Defense denied his security clearance. The appeal was based on a lack of harmful error by the original judge and included new evidence not considered by the judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, citing the absence of any allegations of harmful error.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the Judge.
- New evidence submitted post-decision was not considered by the Appeal Board.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2020-11-06
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2021-07-13 Decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2021-10-26 Appeal 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
The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The Board noted that new evidence submitted by the Applicant was not considered due to procedural restrictions.
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
_______________________________________________ ) 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
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