CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-08747.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-08747.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-08747.a1

Jun 20, 2013· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unmitigated financial concerns. The administrative judge initially raised disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20, while acknowledging some mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 21.

The applicant appealed the denial, but the appeal was unsuccessful. The reviewing authority found that the applicant failed to substantiate any legal or factual errors in the administrative judge's original decision. Although some mitigating evidence was presented, it was deemed insufficient to overturn the adverse determination.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied. The adverse impact of this decision on the applicant's employment was not considered a relevant factor in the appeal process.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21notedFinancial Considerations Mitigating Conditions

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 issuedAug 31, 2012
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldMar 21, 2013Decision made by Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean.
Decision dateJun 20, 2013Appeal 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the applicant after the Department of Defense denied her security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant did not identify any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, stating that the adverse impact of the decision is not relevant and that the presence of mitigating evidence does not automatically warrant a favorable outcome.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowThomas M. Crean — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not substantiate any legal or factual error made by the administrative judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the presence of mitigating evidence alone does not compel a favorable decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperNo de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
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

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

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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