A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-02238.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Dec 4, 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 financial issues. The Appeal Board upheld the denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the judge's decision and submitted new documents that could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege any harmful error against the judge's decision.
- New documents submitted on appeal were not considered as they were not presented during the original hearing.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG F Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2018-09-21
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2019-09-17
- Decision date
- 2019-12-04
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 error, and the Board affirmed the decision as the appeal did not meet the necessary criteria for review.
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 error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents and assertions that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. Some of the documents post-date the Judge’s decision. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02238.a1 DATE: 12/04/2019
DATE: December 4, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) -------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-02238 ) ) 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 September 21, 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 September 17, 2019, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny 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 error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents and assertions that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. Some of the documents post-date the Judge’s decision. 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.
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