A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-02963.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Dec 12, 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 unresolved financial issues. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the original judge, which limited their review authority.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not raise any allegations of error by the Judge in his appeal.
- The Appeal Board is limited to reviewing cases where harmful error is alleged.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2018-12-31
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2019-09-12 Decision on written record.
- Decision date
- 2019-12-12
Cite for
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error in Appeals
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
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 a denial of a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial considerations. The Applicant, representing himself, argued that the clearance upgrade was unnecessary and did not raise any specific harmful errors. The Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, stating it could not review the case de novo or consider new evidence.
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 his brief, Applicant notes that steps taken to upgrade his security clearance to the Top Secret level were unnecessary, and he could have performed his duties with his prior Secret clearance. The Appeal Board, however, has no authority to adjudicate whether a particular applicant needs a security clearance or what level of clearance a particular applicant needs. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02963.a1 DATE: 12/12/2019
DATE: December 12, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) -------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-02963 ) ) 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 December 31, 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 decision on the written record. On September 12, 2019, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gina L. Marine 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 assertions that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In his brief, Applicant notes that steps taken to upgrade his security clearance to the Top Secret level were unnecessary, and he could have performed his duties with his prior Secret clearance. The Appeal Board, however, has no authority to adjudicate whether a particular applicant needs a security clearance or what level of clearance a particular applicant needs. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 97-0016 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 31, 1997). Applicant further indicates the Judge’s adverse decision has had a negative impact on him. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015). Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. 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