CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-02399 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-02399denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-02399

May 24, 2023· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial was affirmed on appeal.

The appeal board's decision to uphold the denial was based on several factors. The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Additionally, the appeal board is prohibited from considering new evidence that was not presented during the initial hearing.

Furthermore, the board could not consider the potential impact of an unfavorable decision on the applicant's employment. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 31raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision.”
— ISCR Case No. 19-01206 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2020)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 7, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 17, 2023after the record closed
Decision dateMay 24, 2023

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBraden M. Murphy — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline JGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board's review is limited to such allegations.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Moira Modzelewski
Allison Marie

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

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

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 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