A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 11-08747.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 20, 2013 · Administrative Judge Jeffrey D. Billett · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to insufficient evidence to mitigate financial concerns. The appeal was denied as the applicant could not substantiate any legal or factual errors made by the administrative judge, and the adverse impact of the decision on employment was deemed irrelevant.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not substantiate any legal or factual errors made by the administrative judge.
- The presence of some mitigating evidence was deemed insufficient to overturn the adverse decision.
- The adverse impact of the decision on employment is not a relevant consideration.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 21 Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditionsnoted
Key rule quoted
“The presence of some mitigating evidence is not enough to show that a Judge’s adverse decision is erroneous.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2012-08-31
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested decision on written record.
- Hearing held
- 2013-03-21 Decision made by Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean.
- Decision date
- 2013-06-20 Appeal decision affirmed.
Cite for
- Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
- Irrelevance of Employment Impact in Clearance Decisions
- Limitations on Appeal Regarding Harmful Error Allegations
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 after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not allege any specific harmful error in the administrative judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial, stating that the adverse impact of the decision on the applicant's employment was not relevant to the 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
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Impact of an adverse decision is not relevant in a DOHA proceeding. Appeal Board authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party alleges harmful error. The presence of some mitigating evidence is not enough to show that a Judge’s adverse decision is erroneous. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 11-08747.a1 DATE: 06/20/2013 DATE: June 20, 2013 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-08747
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 August 31, 2012, DoD 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 March 21, 2013, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In her appeal brief, Applicant states that she “. . . cannot substantiate any legal or factual error made by the administrative judge.” She then summarizes the favorable evidence in her case and notes that loss of her clearance could adversely impact her employment situation. The adverse impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not deemed a relevant consideration in evaluating clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-07563 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 13, 2011). 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 a case de novo. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.
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. 10- 03646 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 28, 2011). Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, 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