A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-03078.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 2, 2015 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, 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 in the judge's decision, leading to the affirmation of the adverse ruling.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision.
- The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
- The Board does not review cases de novo.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2014-11-12
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2015-04-30
- Decision date
- 2015-07-02
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Ruling Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
- De Novo Review Restrictions by the Board
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 denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Board affirmed the decision of the Judge as the applicant did not allege any harmful error.
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 Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-03078.a1 DATE: 07/02/2015 DATE: July 2, 2015 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-03078
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 November 12, 2014, 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 hearing. On April 30, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr. 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 contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, her submission contains a narrative statement that summarizes the evidence presented at the hearing and gives details about her continuing efforts to resolve her financial problems. As part of his submission, she provides the name, address and telephone number of an attorney that she has retained to file for bankruptcy on her behalf, and gives the anticipated dates for the filing and discharge. The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, 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 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board