A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-01765.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 21, 2020 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F due to allegations of failing to file tax returns from 2011 to 2018. The applicant attributed her failure to forgetfulness and PTSD, but the appeal did not demonstrate any harmful error by the judge, leading to the denial of the appeal and affirmation of the adverse decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant failed to raise any issue of harmful error by the judge in her appeal.
- The applicant's reasons for not filing taxes were not sufficient to mitigate the financial concerns.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Failure to file or pay taxesraised
Key rule quoted
“We do not review cases de novo. Our jurisdiction extends only to those cases in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2019-08-12
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2020-07-08
- Decision date
- 2020-10-21
Cite for
- Failure to File Tax Returns Under Guideline F
- Requirements for Raising Harmful Error on Appeal
- Limitations on Considering the Impact of Adverse Decisions on Employment
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 her security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Board found that the Applicant did not raise any harmful errors in her appeal, leading to the affirmation of the Judge's decision.
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: Applicant’s appeal brief does not raise an issue of harmful error by the Judge. Rather, she states that she will not allow this situation to arise in the future, that she has not had serious financial problems, and that she has held a security clearance throughout her military enlistment. Applicant notes that she has lost her job due to her not having a security clearance. On this last point, the Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01765.a1 DATE: 10/21/2020 DATE: October 21, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) -------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-01765
) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )
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 August 12, 2019, 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 July 8, 2020, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s SOR alleged that she had failed to file her Federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2011 through 2018. She attributed this failure to forgetfulness and the effects of post- traumatic stress disorder. Applicant eventually filed all of her delinquent returns in 2019. The Judge entered adverse findings for both allegations. Applicant’s appeal brief does not raise an issue of harmful error by the Judge. Rather, she states that she will not allow this situation to arise in the future, that she has not had serious financial problems, and that she has held a security clearance throughout her military enlistment. Applicant notes that she has lost her job due to her not having a security clearance. On this last point, the Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-03024 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 9, 2020). We do not review cases de novo. Our jurisdiction extends only to those cases in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Insofar as Applicant has not raised an issue of harmful error, the Judge’s decision is affirmed.
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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