CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-19435.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-19435.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-19435.a1

Dec 27, 2007· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 18.

The applicant appealed the denial, but the decision was affirmed. The appeal found no harmful error in the judge's original ruling, as the applicant did not allege any such error in her appeal.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied based on the applicant's unresolved financial issues and the lack of a successful challenge to the initial determination.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 18raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 4, 2007
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldAug 29, 2007Decision made by Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello.
Decision dateDec 27, 2007Appeal affirmed by the Board.

Cite For

Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Allegation
Importance of Addressing Financial Considerations in Security Clearance Cases.

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, and the Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
William S. Fields

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY When unredacted this document contains information EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA Exemption 6 applies KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: The Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-19435.a1 DATE: 12/27/2007 DATE: December 27, 2007 In Re: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-19435

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On January 4, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant The Judge found in favor of Applicant with respect to SOR paragraphs 1.e, 1.f, and 1.g. Those favorable findings are not at issue on appeal. requested the case be decided on the written record. On August 29, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence which indicates that Applicant has paid off her remaining debts. The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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. It does not review cases de novo. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board