CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-01358.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-01358.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01358.a1

Apr 24, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved debts. The Appeal Board affirmed this denial.

The Board noted that the applicant did not raise any allegations of error regarding the Judge's decision in her appeal. Furthermore, the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence that was not presented during the initial hearing.

Consequently, the denial of the security clearance was upheld, with the disqualifying condition F.1 being the primary concern.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board does not conduct de novo reviews.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 11, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 31, 2019
Decision dateApr 24, 2019

Cite For

Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Prohibition Against Considering New Evidence on Appeal
Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Error Allegations

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 involved an Applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant requested the Appeal Board to review the unfavorable findings but did not raise any specific allegations of error. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as no harmful error was alleged.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not raise any allegations of error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Appeal Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board is limited to reviewing only such allegations. The Board also noted that it cannot consider new evidence not in the record.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

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

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: In her appeal brief, Applicant asks us to “take another look” at the Judge’s unfavorable findings. The Appeal Board does not conduct de novo reviews. Her brief does not raise any allegations of error on the part of the Judge. While it does contain assertions that are not in the record, including her intended actions regarding the unresolved debts, the Appeal Board is prohibited from receiving or considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-01358.a1 DATE: 04/24/2019 DATE: April 24, 2019 In Re: ------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-01358

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 June 11, 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 31, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In her appeal brief, Applicant asks us to “take another look” at the Judge’s unfavorable findings. The Appeal Board does not conduct de novo reviews. Her brief does not raise any allegations of error on the part of the Judge. While it does contain assertions that are not in the record, including her intended actions regarding the unresolved debts, the Appeal Board is prohibited from receiving or considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

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