CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-10934.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-10934.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-10934.a1

Mar 21, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. The Board's review is limited to considering allegations of harmful error by the judge, and it cannot consider new evidence presented during the appeal process. The applicant's appeal did not assert any such error in the judge's original decision.

Consequently, without an allegation of harmful error, the Appeal Board lacked the authority to remand the case for a new hearing or to consider additional evidence. The original denial of the security clearance was therefore upheld.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 21, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 28, 2016Decision issued by Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe.
Decision dateMar 21, 2016Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Cite For

Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error
Inability to Consider New Evidence on Appeal

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed but did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Board affirmed the denial as the applicant's appeal did not meet the threshold for harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip S. Howe — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, and the Applicant's appeal did not present such claims.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
William S. Fields

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

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: The Board does not review a case 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision AFFIRMED CASENO: 12-10934.a1 DATE: 03/21/2016 DATE: March 21, 2016 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-10934

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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 May 21, 2015, 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 January 28, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, Applicant states that she made a mistake by not electing to have a hearing, and asks the Board to remand her case for a hearing so that she can offer evidence about herself, particularly her military service and awards. As part of her submission on appeal, she includes copies of her DD214, Legion of Merit narrative, and several character reference letters. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, the Board has no authority to remand a case for a hearing simply for the purpose of taking in new evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-20403 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 7, 2003) citing ISCR Case No. 00-0429 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 9, 2001)(“Absent a showing of factual or legal error that affects a party’s right to present evidence in the proceedings below, a party does not have the right to have a second chance at presenting its case before an Administrative Judge.”) The Board does not review a case 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed; Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board