CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-02948.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-02948.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02948.a1

Jan 11, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The initial denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F1, which raised concerns about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness.

The applicant appealed the decision but did not assert any harmful error by the judge in her appeal. Consequently, the appeal was denied, affirming the original decision.

This outcome underscores the importance of financial responsibility in security clearance determinations, as the applicant's unresolved financial issues were deemed sufficient to deny the clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“[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.”
— Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 18.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 1, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 3, 2017
Decision dateJan 11, 2018

Cite For

Importance of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Asserted
Criteria for Evaluating Trustworthiness in Security Clearance Cases.

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 under Guideline F. The applicant appealed but did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

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 limited to the issues raised by the Applicant, and since no harmful error was asserted, the original decision was upheld.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
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. CASE NO: 16-02948.a1 DATE: 01/11/2018 DATE: January 11, 2018 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-02948

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 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