CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05141.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-05141.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05141.a1

May 3, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The Appeal Board upheld the denial.

The Board's decision cited Disqualifying Condition F1, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations, and Disqualifying Condition E2, related to deliberate misrepresentation or falsification. The applicant did not assert harmful error in her appeal, which is a procedural requirement for challenging the initial decision.

Furthermore, the applicant presented new evidence during the appeal process. However, the Appeal Board is unable to consider new evidence at this stage, as its review is limited to the record established during the initial adjudication. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG F1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG E2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board’s jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party asserts harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 4, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMar 3, 2016
Decision dateMay 3, 2016

Cite For

Limitations of the Appeal Board's Jurisdiction Regarding Harmful Error Assertions
Inability to Consider New Evidence on Appeal
Denial Based on Financial Considerations and Personal Conduct Issues

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 based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm the Administrative Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not raise an issue on harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not assert any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, and new evidence cannot be considered on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
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; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant did not raise an issue on harmful error. The Appeal Board’s jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party asserts harmful error. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-05141.a1 DATE: 05/03/2016 DATE: May 3, 2016 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-05141

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 April 4, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On March 3, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson 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. Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement about the origins of Applicant’s financial problems, and her intention to file for bankruptcy in the near future. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review a case de novo. 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. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board