CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-02238.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-02238.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02238.a1

Dec 4, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The Appeal Board upheld this denial.

The Board's decision was based on two key factors. First, the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the judge's original decision to deny the clearance. Second, the applicant submitted new documents during the appeal process that had not been presented during the initial hearing.

Because these new documents were not part of the original record, the Appeal Board could not consider them. Consequently, the denial of the security clearance was affirmed.

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 issuedSep 21, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 17, 2019
Decision dateDec 4, 2019

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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 denial as the new evidence submitted was not considered. The decision was affirmed without reaching the merits of the case.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowClaude R. Heiny — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence not presented during the original hearing.

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 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 ) )

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 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