A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-02718
Appeal BoardDecided Nov 29, 2021 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced denial of a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial concerns. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, and the Board is limited to reviewing cases where such error is alleged.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the Judge in the appeal.
- The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal.
- The applicant's financial hardship due to the loss of clearance was not a permissible consideration.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2020-11-10
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2021-08-20 Decision made on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2021-11-29
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
The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her 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 her 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
_______________________________________________ ) 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
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