A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-00249.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 2, 2019 · 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 Board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the original judge and submitted new documents that could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege any harmful error on the part of the Judge.
- The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence not in the record.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 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
- 2018-02-02
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2019-01-16
- Decision date
- 2019-04-02 Appeal decision
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Allegations
- Prohibition Against Considering New Evidence on Appeal
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
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 Administrative Judge denied their request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant's appeal did not raise any allegations of harmful error, leading the Board to affirm the lower decision.
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 raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge, but it does contain a number of documents and assertions that are not in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-00249.a1 DATE: 04/02/2019 DATE: April 2, 2019 In Re: --------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-00249
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 February 2, 2018, 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 January 16, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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 harmful error on the part of the Judge, but it does contain a number of documents and assertions that are not in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board