CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02861.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-02861.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02861.a1

Aug 10, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The appeal board affirmed this denial.

The board noted that the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Furthermore, the board emphasized that the financial impact of the denial on the applicant is not a relevant factor when determining eligibility for national security access.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied based on the applicant's financial considerations, with the appeal board upholding the original decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG FraisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The impact of an unfavorable decision is not a relevant consideration in evaluating national security eligibility.”
— ISCR Case No. 18-02239 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 20, 2020)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 1, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 19, 2020Decision made on written record.
Decision dateAug 10, 2020Appeal decision.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals
Irrelevance of Financial Impact in National Security Eligibility Evaluations.

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal was regarding the denial of 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, stating that the impact of the decision on the applicant's finances is not relevant to national security eligibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEric H. Borgstrom — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
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 as the applicant did not allege any harmful error. The impact of an unfavorable decision was not considered relevant to national security eligibility.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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 impact of an unfavorable decision is not a relevant consideration in evaluating national security eligibility. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02861.a1 DATE: 08/10/2020

DATE: August 10, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) -------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-02861 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 1, 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 decision on the written record. On May 19, 2020, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Eric H. Borgstrom denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Her brief does contain assertions and documents that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant noted the decision will have a negative impact on her financially. However, the impact of an unfavorable decision is not a relevant consideration in evaluating national security eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18- 02239 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 20, 2020).

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 sustainable.

ORDER

The Decision 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board