A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-00307.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 23, 2020 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, and the Appeal Board affirmed the adverse decision based on the lack of such allegations.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal brief did not assert harmful error by the Judge.
- The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence not included in the record.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review a case de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2019-06-14
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2019-10-31 Decision made by Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason.
- Decision date
- 2020-01-23 Appeal decision affirmed.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Importance of Including All Relevant Evidence in the Record for Appeal
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 assert any harmful error by the Judge, leading the Board to affirm the decision.
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 contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a document that is not included in the record. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASENO: 19-00307.a1 DATE: 01/23/2020 DATE: January 23, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) -------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-00307 ) ) 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 June 14, 2019, 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 October 31, 2019, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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 no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a document that is not included in the record. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review a case 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is sustainable.
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