A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-09072.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Dec 8, 2011 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to unresolved financial issues. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, and new evidence presented was not considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the Judge.
- The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
- The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel a favorable decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
Mitigating
- F.2 The conditions that resulted in the financial problems were largely beyond the person's controlrejected
- F.3 The person has made good faith efforts to repay debtsrejected
Key rule quoted
“The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2011-04-14
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2011-09-23 Decision made by Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro.
- Decision date
- 2011-12-08 Appeal decision affirmed.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Authority Regarding New Evidence
- Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error 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 seeking a security clearance who was denied by an Administrative Judge based on financial considerations. The applicant appealed but did not assert any harmful error by the Judge. The Board affirmed the denial as the applicant's appeal did not meet the necessary criteria for reversal.
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 DIGEST: Applicant did not assert harmful error by the Judge. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 10-09072.a1 DATE: 12/08/2011 DATE: December 8, 2011 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-09072
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 April 14, 2011, 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 requested that the case be decided on the written record. On September 23, 2011, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro 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, based on the record that was before him. Rather, it contains a combination of record evidence and new
Footnotes
1 To the extent that Applicant’s brief could be construed as arguing that the record evidence would support a favorable application of the mitigating conditions, such an argument is insufficient to demonstrate that the Judge erred. The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-07139 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2011). evidence, in the form of documents dated subsequent to the Judge’s decision, showing Applicant’s payment of specific debts. Applicant states that she prepared her reply in response to the Judge’s adverse decision, and that the newly proffered documents demonstrate that the Judge erred in reaching his decision. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.1 Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board