A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-01358.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 24, 2019 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to unresolved debts. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not raise any allegations of error in her appeal and that new evidence could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not raise any allegations of error on the part of the Judge.
- The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board does not conduct de novo reviews.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2018-06-11
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2019-01-31
- Decision date
- 2019-04-24
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
The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant, representing herself, requested the Appeal Board to reconsider the Judge's unfavorable findings but did not allege any specific errors. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as no harmful error was raised.
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: 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
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