CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-08577.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-08577.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-08577.a1

Aug 17, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to adequately specify alleged errors made by the Judge during the initial review.

The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant's appeal lacked sufficient specificity regarding any purported errors. Crucially, the applicant did not raise any allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Consequently, the Appeal Board found no basis to overturn the original decision, and the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG FraisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“An appealing party must state with sufficient specificity what it is about a Judge’s decision that he or she believes to be erroneous so as to enable the Appeal Board to address the assignment of error.”
— ISCR Case No. 14-05920 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 13, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 17, 2016
Decision dateAug 17, 2016

Cite For

Insufficient Specificity in Appeal Regarding Alleged Errors
Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Allegation
Requirements for Appealing a Judge's Decision

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 who was denied by an Administrative Judge based on financial considerations. The applicant appealed but did not raise any specific harmful errors in the Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not raise an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not raise any specific harmful error regarding the Judge's decision, and the appeal did not present sufficient specificity to address any alleged errors.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
James F. Duffy

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: Applicant did not raise an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 12-08577.a1 DATE: 08/17/2016 DATE: August 17, 2016 In Re: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-08577

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 13, 2015, 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 a hearing. On May 17, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch 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 assertions that her employers were negligent in the processing of her security clearance, and one employer committed a breach of employment. In supported of her claims, she provided a number of documents that were not previously submitted to the Judge. The Appeal Board can neither receive nor consider such new evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review a case de novo. Besides the assertions involving her employers, we are unable to determine with any degree of certitude exactly what error Applicant is raising. An appealing party must state with sufficient specificity what it is about a Judge’s decision that he or she believes to be erroneous so as to enable the Appeal Board to address the assignment of error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05920 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016). Because Applicant has not raised an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge, the decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board