CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-04623.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-04623.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04623.a1

Dec 29, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), specifically citing Disqualifying Condition F.1. The denial was based on unresolved financial issues.

Upon appeal, the initial decision was affirmed. The appeal board's authority is limited to reviewing cases where harmful error in the initial ruling is alleged. In this instance, the applicant did not assert any such error in her appeal.

Despite the applicant expressing a commitment to resolving her debts, the absence of an alleged harmful error meant the board could not overturn the original denial. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Our authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has asserted harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 7, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 6, 2016
Decision dateDec 29, 2016

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Asserted
Limitations of Appeal Authority Regarding Harmful Error
Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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 denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not raise any issue of harmful error in the appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — 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 issue of 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 in the appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
Catherine M. Engstrom

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 issue of harmful error. Our authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has asserted harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-04623.a1 DATE: 12/29/2016 DATE: December 29, 2016 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-04623

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 December 7, 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 October 6, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to 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 Applicant’s statements that: she takes the resolution of her debt, along with her employment and security clearance, seriously; she is living within her means and is in need of financial guidance; she is willing to attend any suggested financial programs that would help reflect how seriously she is taking the resolution of her debts; and if her clearance is reinstated at her current salary she would be able to resolve her debts within five years without accruing any further debt. She also details the current status of each of her debts and her plans for satisfying them. 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. The Board does not review a case de novo. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy

Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Catherine M. Engstrom Catherine M. Engstrom Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board