Skip to content
← Back to results

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

ISCR Case No. 15-03061.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Apr 6, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge, and new evidence presented was not considered by the Appeal Board. The Board affirmed the judge's decision based on the lack of harmful error allegations.

Why the applicant was denied

  • The applicant did not allege harmful error by the Judge.
  • The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence not presented to the original judge.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

  • F1 Financial Considerationsraised

Key rule quoted

Procedural posture

SOR issued
2016-02-10
Answer filed
Hearing held
2017-01-30 Applicant requested decision on written record.
Decision date
2017-04-06 Appeal Board affirmed the decision.

Cite for

  • Limitations on Appeal Regarding Harmful Error Allegations
  • New Evidence Not Considered by the Appeal Board
  • Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Claims

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 seeking a security clearance after the Administrative Judge denied the request based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial due to the lack of harmful error claims.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

Synopsis

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant did not raise an issue of harmful error. Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party has asserted that the Judge committed harmful error. Adverse decision affirm. CASE NO: 15-03061.a1 DATE: 04/06/2017 DATE: April 6, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No.15-03061

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 February 10, 2016, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On January 30, 2017, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In the Appeal Brief, Applicant raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, she stated that she is appealing to present favorable information that she did not previously present to the Judge. She attached documents to her Appeal Brief that constitute new evidence, which the Appeal Board can neither receive nor consider. See 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 an allegation of harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board