A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-02766.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 12, 2012 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced financial concerns under Guideline F and was denied a security clearance. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not demonstrate harmful error in the judge's decision and that new evidence could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not demonstrate harmful error in the judge's decision.
- The Appeal Board does not review a case de novo and affirmed the lower decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board does not review a case de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2011-05-04
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2011-10-21
- Decision date
- 2012-01-12
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
- Limitations of 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 his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Judge's ruling.
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: The Appeal Board does not review a case de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-02766.a1 DATE: 01/12/2012 DATE: January 12, 2012 In Re: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-02766
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On May 4, 2011, DOHA 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 October 21, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. The brief contains a recitation as to why Applicant’s case should be adjudicated favorably. Applicant states in some detail why he believes the Government’s security concerns regarding his financial troubles have been mitigated. Some of Applicant’s representations contain facts not considered below. By explicit mandate, the Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review a case de novo.1 Rather, 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board
Footnotes
1 To the extent Applicant’s brief can be construed as arguing that the record would support a favorable decision, such an argument is not sufficient to demonstrate error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-09072 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 8, 2011).