Loading case…

ISCR 15-08340.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2018) · CASE

ISCR Case 15-08340.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-08340.a1

Aug 2, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied a clearance primarily due to financial considerations under Guideline F, with criminal conduct under Guideline J also noted. The denial was based on disqualifying conditions outlined in Adjudicative Guideline (AG) Paragraph 20, while mitigating conditions from AG Paragraph 23 were applied.

The applicant's appeal was affirmed, upholding the initial denial. This decision was reached because the applicant's appeal brief failed to assert any harmful error committed by the judge during the initial adjudication. Additionally, new evidence submitted by the applicant as part of her appeal was not considered by the Board.

Consequently, the applicant's request for a security clearance was denied.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23appliedCriminal Conduct

Key rule quoted

“The Board does not review a case de novo.”

Procedural posture

SOR issuedJun 16, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 26, 2018
Decision dateAug 2, 2018

Cite for

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations on New Evidence in Appeal
Guidance on 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations and criminal conduct. The applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error by the Judge, leading the Board to affirm the decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip J. Katauskas denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

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 on new evidence that could not be considered, and the Judge had already ruled in favor of the applicant on one of the allegations.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan (Chair)
Charles C. Hale
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’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-08340.a1 DATE: 08/02/2018 DATE: August 2, 2018 In Re: ------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-08340

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 June 16, 2016, 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 J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On April 26, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip J. Katauskas 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 two credit reports that post-date the Judge’s decision and Applicant’s arguments concerning her debts based on those credit reports. The credit reports constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant’s appeal brief also contains a court document not previously submitted and raises arguments concerning the Guideline J allegation. However, the Judge found in favor of her on that allegation. 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: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board