CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-01133 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-01133denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01133

Aug 8, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing themselves pro se, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The initial denial stemmed from concerns regarding the applicant's financial history.

Upon appeal, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. The Board's decision was based on two key factors: the applicant did not introduce any new evidence that had not already been considered by the Judge, and the applicant failed to allege any harmful error committed by the Judge during the initial review.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, with the Appeal Board upholding the original decision due to the lack of new information or demonstrated procedural error.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG FraisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 9, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 6, 2019
Decision dateAug 8, 2019

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of New Evidence in Appeals
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error in Security Clearance Appeals
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence

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 applicant appealed the denial of his security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Appeal Board found that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge and therefore affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not allege any specific harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the applicant did not raise any specific harmful error regarding the Judge's decision. The Board is limited to reviewing only the errors alleged by the applicant and cannot consider new evidence submitted on appeal.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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 contains a document and assertions that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. His brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge that is based on evidence that we can consider. Adverse decision affirmed CASENO: 18-01133 DATE: 08/08/2019

DATE: August 8, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ------------ ) ISCR Case No. 18-01133 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

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 October 9, 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 June 6, 2019, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran 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 a document and assertions that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. His brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge that is based on evidence that we can consider. 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.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed; Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F.. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board