A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-08340.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 2, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on financial concerns under Guideline F. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, and the new evidence submitted was not considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal brief did not assert harmful error by the judge.
- The appeal included new evidence that was not considered by the Board.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 23 Criminal Conductapplied
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review a case de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-06-16
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2018-04-26
- Decision date
- 2018-08-02
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations on New Evidence in Appeal
- Guidance on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
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 denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations and criminal conduct. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The appeal included new evidence that was not permissible for consideration.
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’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-08340.a1 DATE: 08/02/2018 DATE: August 2, 2018 In Re: ------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-08340
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 June 16, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On April 26, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip J. Katauskas 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 on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains two credit reports that post-date the Judge’s decision and Applicant’s arguments concerning her debts based on those credit reports. The credit reports constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant’s appeal brief also contains a court document not previously submitted and raises arguments concerning the Guideline J allegation. However, the Judge found in favor of her on that allegation. 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 Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board