CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-03078.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-03078.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03078.a1

Jul 2, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied a clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed this decision, but the appeal was ultimately denied, affirming the original adverse ruling.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to assert any harmful error in the judge's initial decision. The Board noted that it cannot consider new evidence during an appeal and does not review cases de novo, meaning it does not re-evaluate the facts of the case from the beginning.

Consequently, without an argument of harmful error from the applicant, the Board upheld the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 12, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 30, 2015
Decision dateJul 2, 2015

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance as the applicant's appeal did not raise any specific harmful errors.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
William S. Fields

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: 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

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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