A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-00838
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 19, 2024 · Administrative Judge James B. Norman · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced denial of a security clearance due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, leading to the maintenance of the denial of security clearance eligibility.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge during the appeal.
- The appeal board is limited to reviewing cases where harmful error is alleged.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 18 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the judge committed harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2023-05-02
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2024-01-18
- Decision date
- 2024-03-19
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
- Financial Concerns Under Guideline F Leading to Denial of Clearance.
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 denial of her security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision and submitted new evidence, which the Board could not consider. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as sustainable due to the lack of harmful error allegations.
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. 23-00838
)
) 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: March 19, 2024
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On May 2, 2023, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On January 18, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, she submits new evidence 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. 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 decision of the Judge denying Applicant security clearance eligibility is sustainable.
Order
The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board