A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-00020.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 19, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not raise any allegations of error against the judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not raise any allegations of error against the judge.
- The decision was based on security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2018-01-19
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2018-08-17 Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2018-10-19 Appeal Board affirmed the denial.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Error Allegations
- Importance of Raising Legal Errors in Appeals
- Withdrawal of Allegations Under Guideline E
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 after being denied due to concerns under Guideline E and Guideline F. The Applicant's appeal did not raise any allegations of error against the Administrative Judge, leading the Board to affirm 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 PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline F DIGEST: Because Applicant has not raised an allegation of error on the part of the Judge, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-00020.a1 DATE: 10/18/2018 DATE: October 19, 2018 In Re: ---------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-00020
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 January 19, 2018, 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 E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).1 Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On August 17, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch 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 narrative statement about his financial situation and his efforts to pay his debts. His brief also contains a document that was not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
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 1 In the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Department Counsel withdrew the sole Guideline E allegation.