CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-02675.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-02675.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-02675.a1

Jun 14, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal was subsequently denied, affirming the original decision.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to allege any harmful error by the judge in the initial determination. Additionally, the applicant submitted new evidence with her appeal that had not been presented or considered during the original security clearance decision.

The Board's review process prohibits the consideration of new evidence on appeal. Consequently, without an allegation of judicial error and with the submission of unreviewed evidence, the Board upheld the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 15, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 30, 2018Decision made by Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera.
Decision dateJun 14, 2018Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error in Appeals

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 who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed but did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge, instead submitting new evidence that was not considered. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — 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 and presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

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. Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement about her efforts to resolve alleged debts and documents not previously submitted to the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-02675.a1 DATE: 06/14/2018 DATE: June 14, 2018 In Re: -------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No.17-02675

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 August 15, 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 30, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera 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 new evidence in the form of a narrative statement about her efforts to resolve alleged debts and documents not previously submitted to the Judge, most of which post-date the Judge’s decision. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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