A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-01133
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 8, 2019 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves pro se, faced security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and was denied a security clearance. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial due to the absence of new evidence and failure to allege harmful error by the Judge.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not present any new evidence that was not previously considered by the Judge.
- The applicant failed to allege any harmful error on the part of the Judge.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG F Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2018-10-09
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2019-06-06
- Decision date
- 2019-08-08
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
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 raise any specific harmful errors in his appeal, leading to the affirmation of the Administrative Judge's 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 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 ) )
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