A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 12-08577.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 17, 2016 · 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 insufficient specificity in her appeal regarding alleged errors by the Judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not raise any harmful error on the part of the Judge.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not raise an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.
- The Appeal Board found the applicant's appeal lacked sufficient specificity regarding the alleged errors.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG F Financial Considerationsraised
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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-08-13
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2016-05-17
- Decision date
- 2016-08-17
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
The appeal was filed by the applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the decision as the applicant did not raise any specific harmful error regarding the Judge's ruling. The appeal was therefore denied.
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 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
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