A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-01949.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 14, 2021 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert harmful error by the Judge, and new evidence presented was not considered, leading to the affirmation of the denial.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal did not assert harmful error by the Judge.
- New evidence presented in the appeal was not considered by the Appeal Board.
- The applicant's prior security clearance history did not mitigate the current security concerns.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2020-04-28
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2021-01-13
- Decision date
- 2021-04-14
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
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.
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; 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 ) )
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