A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 17-01891.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 21, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal did not allege harmful error by the judge and included a narrative about her debts, which the Appeal Board could not consider. The adverse decision was affirmed due to the lack of a relevant allegation of error.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge.
- The appeal included new evidence that the Appeal Board could not consider.
- The adverse impact of losing the clearance was not a relevant consideration for eligibility.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The adverse impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a relevant or material consideration in evaluating security clearance eligibility.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2017-06-07
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2018-03-09
- Decision date
- 2018-05-21
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Alleged
- Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
- Non-consideration of Personal Impact in Security Clearance Evaluations
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
The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not raise any allegations of harmful error in her appeal.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-01891.a1 DATE: 05/21/2018
DATE: May 21, 2018 In Re: -------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No.17-01891
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 7, 2017, 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 9, 2018, after considering the record, 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 raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a narrative statement about the current status of her debts and her efforts to resolve them. It also contains new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, Applicant noted that losing her security clearance will make it harder to resolve her debts. The adverse impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a relevant or material consideration in evaluating security clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015). The Board does not review cases 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 made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance 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