CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-02429 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-02429denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-02429

Nov 29, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant, representing himself, sought to address these concerns, but the Department of Defense ultimately denied the clearance.

Upon appeal, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. The Board noted that the applicant did not assert any harmful error committed by the initial judge. Furthermore, the applicant presented new evidence during the appeal process, which the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering as part of its review.

Consequently, the application was denied, with the Appeal Board upholding the original decision based on the established record and the procedural limitations regarding new evidence on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 6, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateNov 29, 2021Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Pro Se Representation in Security Clearance Cases

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 their request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error, leading the Board to affirm the lower decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGregg A. Cervi — 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. 20-02429

)

) 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 documents that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive E3.1.29. Adverse Decision is Affirmed. CASE NO: 20-02429.a1 DATE: 11/29/2021 Date: November 29, 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 January 6, 2021, 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 September 14, 2021, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi 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 documents that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive E3.1.29. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. The 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