A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-01734.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 19, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to unresolved financial issues. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge and presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge.
- The appeal included new evidence that could not be considered.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“We do not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-11-23
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2016-11-03
- Decision date
- 2017-01-19
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
- Requirement to Assert Harmful Error for Appeal Consideration
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 from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the decision as there were no grounds for reversal or remand.
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
KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant did not raise an issue on harmful error by the Judge. We do not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-01734.a1 DATE: 01/19/2017 DATE: January 19, 2017 In Re: ----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-01734
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 23, 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 hearing. On November 3, 2016, after the hearing, 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 contains no assertion of harmful error. Rather, it includes new evidence, an IRS Form 2828, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Moreover, we do not review cases de novo. Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-07018 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2016). Because Applicant has made no such allegation, the decision 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