ISCR Case No. 16-02948.a1

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 16-02948.a1 DATE: 01/11/2018 DATE: January 11, 2018 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-02948

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 November 1, 2016, 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 3, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley 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, she correctly notes that she cannot submit documentation in her appeal brief showing she is making payments on some of her debts because it would constitute new evidence. See, Directive ¶ E3.1.29. She also contends that applicants should be judged on their character and work ethic and not on their financial faults. We note the Directive provides that “[t]he adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period and a careful weighing of a number of variables of an individual life to make an affirmative determination that the individual is an acceptable risk.”1 Guideline F sets forth important conditions for a Judge to consider because “[f]ailure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.”2 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. Because Applicant has not raised such an allegation, the decision of the Judge 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 1 Directive, Encl 2, App. A ¶ 2(a). 2 Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 18. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board