Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

ISCR Case No. 12-10934.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Mar 21, 2016 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to failure to demonstrate harmful error by the judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, stating that it cannot consider new evidence or remand for a hearing without an allegation of harmful error. The applicant's appeal did not assert any such error, leading to the affirmation of the original decision.

Why the applicant was denied

  • The applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge.
  • The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
  • The Board's authority is limited to reviewing allegations of harmful error.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

  • AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised

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 issued
2015-05-21
Answer filed
Hearing held
2016-01-28 Decision issued by Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe.
Decision date
2016-03-21 Appeal 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

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 of the security clearance.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

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

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