CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01949.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01949.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01949.a1

Apr 14, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). Specifically, disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19 and AG ¶ 15 were raised.

The denial was upheld because the applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error by the Judge. Additionally, new evidence presented during the appeal process was not considered by the Appeal Board.

The applicant's prior security clearance history also failed to mitigate the current security concerns, leading to the affirmation of the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Government does not have to wait until an applicant has compromised or mishandled classified information before it can deny the applicant a clearance.”
— ISCR Case No. 16-01131 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Apr. 19, 2018)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 28, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 13, 2021
Decision dateApr 14, 2021

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Denial of Security Clearance Based on Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence

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 filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline F and Guideline E. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error in her appeal, and the new evidence presented was not considered. The appeal was therefore denied.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowElizabeth M. Matchinski — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the assertions made in the appeal were considered new evidence not permissible for review.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains assertions that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. Such assertions constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01949.a1 DATE: 04/14/2021 DATE: April 14, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) -------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-01949 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se

TheDepartment of Defense(DoD) declined to grant Applicant a securityclearance. On April 28, 2020, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant initially requested a decision on the written record but later requested a hearing. On January 13, 2021, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski 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. Rather, it contains assertions that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. Such assertions constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant notes that she has held a security clearance for 37 years and would never compromise classified information or engage in illegal activity. An applicant’s prior securityhistory does not preclude a Judge from concluding the SOR allegations raise security concerns that remain unmitigated. The Government does not have to wait until an applicant has compromised or mishandledclassified information before it can denythe applicant a clearance. Even those with good prior records can encounter circumstances in which their judgment and reliability might be compromised. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-01131 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Apr. 19, 2018). 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 failed to make such an allegation of error. 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