CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-02718 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-02718denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-02718

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

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was affirmed on appeal because the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in her appeal.

The Appeal Board's review is limited to cases where a harmful error is alleged, and it is prohibited from considering new evidence. The applicant's arguments regarding financial hardship resulting from the loss of clearance were not permissible considerations for the Board.

Therefore, the security clearance was denied based on the original financial concerns, as the applicant did not successfully challenge the judge's decision on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 10, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 20, 2021Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateNov 29, 2021

Cite For

Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error on Appeal
Impact of Financial Hardship Not Considered in Clearance Decisions

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 Judge's decision, leading to the affirmation of the denial.

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 appeal contained new evidence that could not be considered.

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. 20-02718

)

) 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. At least one document postdates the Judge’s decision and others are undated. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse Decision is Affirmed. CASE NO: 20-02718.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 November 10, 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 August 20, 2021, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 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 assertions and documents that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. At least one document postdates the Judge’s decision and others are undated. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also indicates that her loss of security clearance will create a financial hardship. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01206 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2020). 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