CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-01891.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-01891.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-01891.a1

May 21, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied eligibility under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.1, which addresses financial difficulties.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. This was primarily because the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the administrative judge in the initial decision. Additionally, the appeal included new evidence regarding her debts, which the Appeal Board was unable to consider as part of its review. The Board also noted that the potential adverse impact of losing the clearance was not a relevant factor in determining eligibility.

Given the lack of a relevant allegation of error and the inability to consider new evidence, the Appeal Board upheld the original adverse decision, resulting in the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

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.”
— ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 7, 2017
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMar 9, 2018
Decision dateMay 21, 2018

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip J. Katauskas — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief raises no allegation 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 a narrative of the Applicant's current financial situation, which the Board could not consider as it did not constitute a harmful error.

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 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

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 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