A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-00553.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 30, 2021 · 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 initial judge and presented new evidence that was not considered during the initial decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the Judge.
- The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence not presented during the initial decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2020-05-28
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2021-05-19 Decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2021-08-30
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Pro Se Representation in Security Clearance Cases
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, leading the Board to affirm the original 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 makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. It does contain assertions and documents that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. Most of those documents post-date the Judge’s decision. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse Decision Affirmed. CASE NO: 20-00553.a1 DATE: 08/30/2021 DATE: August 30, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 20-00553 ) ) 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 May 28, 2020, 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 May 19, 2021, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. It does contain assertions and documents that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. Most of those documents post-date the Judge’s decision. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. 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 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