CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-06351.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-06351.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-06351.a1

May 31, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The Department of Defense denied a security clearance application under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The applicant, representing herself, appealed the initial denial, which was based on financial issues.

The appeal was subsequently denied because the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's initial decision. The appeal board also noted that it could not consider new evidence presented after the initial decision had been made. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 20, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMar 31, 2016Decision made by Administrative Judge Nichole L. Noel.
Decision dateMay 31, 2016Appeal affirmed by the Board.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations on New Evidence Consideration in Appeals
Importance of Responding to the Government's File of Relevant Material (FORM)

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 who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal and provided evidence of improved financial status, which the Board could not consider. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNichole L. Noel — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's brief contains no assertion of error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The appeal was based solely on the Applicant's improved financial situation, which cannot be considered as new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Catherine M. Engstrom
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: Applicant’s brief contains no assertion of error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-06351.a1 DATE: 05/31/2016 DATE: May 31, 2016 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-06351

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 January 20, 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 decision on the written record. On March 31, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Nichole L. Noel denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant requested that her case be decided on the written record and then did not respond to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). Her appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a statement by the Applicant that her financial situation has improved as evidenced by three attached credit reports which postdate the decision in her case. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, 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 Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Catherine M. Engstrom Catherine M. Engstrom Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board