CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-02677.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-02677.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-02677.a1

Aug 14, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19.

Representing herself, the applicant appealed the denial. However, the appeal was unsuccessful because she did not allege any error by the judge in the initial decision. Additionally, new evidence submitted by the applicant post-dated the close of the record and therefore could not be considered by the Appeal Board.

Consequently, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

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 issuedSep 6, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 26, 2018
Decision dateAug 14, 2018

Cite For

Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error in Appeals
Consideration of New Evidence in Appeals

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board found that the applicant did not raise any allegations of error in the Judge's decision, leading to the affirmation of the denial.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the appeal contained new evidence that could not be considered.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Charles C. Hale
James F. Duffy

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: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a number of documents that post-date the close of the record or the Judge’s decision. Those documents constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-02677.a1 DATE: 08/14/2018 DATE: August 14, 2018 In Re: ----------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-02677

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 September 6, 2017, 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 April 26, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a number of documents that post-date the close of the record or the Judge’s decision. Those documents constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also mentions that she provided a document (an email) to the Judge about placing her home for sale on the real estate market. The email is part of the record of the proceeding (Applicant’s Exhibit (AX) G), and Judge made findings of fact about the information contained in that email. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. 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 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