CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00553.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-00553.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-00553.a1

Aug 30, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The initial denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The applicant appealed this decision, but the appeal was denied. The Appeal Board noted that the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the initial judge. Furthermore, the Board could not consider new evidence presented by the applicant during the appeal process, as this evidence had not been part of the initial decision.

Consequently, the Appeal Board upheld the original denial, concluding that the applicant's financial considerations remained a disqualifying factor for a security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 28, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 19, 2021Decision on the written record.
Decision dateAug 30, 2021

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· 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 assert any harmful error, leading the Board to affirm the original decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful 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 Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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 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 ) )

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 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