A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-02399
Appeal BoardDecided May 24, 2023 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct). The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, and the appeal board could not consider new evidence or the impact of the decision on the applicant's employment.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge.
- The appeal board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal.
- The impact of an unfavorable decision on the applicant's job could not be considered.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 31 Criminal Conductraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2020-12-07
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2023-03-17 after the record closed
- Decision date
- 2023-05-24
Cite for
- Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
- Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error
- Impact of Unfavorable Decisions Not Considered in Appeals
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 involved an Applicant who was denied a security clearance based on concerns under multiple guidelines. The Applicant appealed but did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant's appeal did not meet the necessary criteria for review.
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
Appearances
_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
----- )
ISCR Case No. 20-02399
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 Date: May 24, 2023
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 December 7, 2020, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive) and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4, effective June 8, 2017. Applicant requested a hearing. On March 17, 2023, after the record closed, Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant make no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, she submits new evidence, provides additional context for her financial difficulties, and requests reconsideration of the Judge’s decision. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is
prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also highlights that she requires a security clearance to retain her job. The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01206 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2020). The 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 such an allegation of error, the Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is sustainable.
Order
The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board