CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-10994.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-10994.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-10994.a1

Nov 14, 2012· 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 decision cited Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The applicant appealed the denial, but the appeal was unsuccessful. The Board could not consider new evidence submitted by the applicant during the appeal process. Furthermore, the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the initial decision, which is a necessary component for a successful appeal.

Consequently, the denial of the security clearance was upheld. The Board's decision was based on the applicant's ongoing financial concerns and the procedural limitations of the appeal process, specifically the inability to consider new evidence and the lack of asserted harmful error.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 8, 2012
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldAug 30, 2012Decision issued by Administrative Judge Nichole L. Noel.
Decision dateNov 14, 2012Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Limitations on the Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence on Appeal
Requirement for Assertion of Harmful Error for Successful Appeal

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 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 assert any harmful error in her appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNichole L. Noel — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant raised no assertion of harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean Smallin
William S. Fields

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 raised no assertion of harmful error. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 10-10994.a1 DATE: 11/14/2012 DATE: November 14, 2012 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-10994

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On March 8, 2012, DOHA 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On August 30, 2012, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Nichole L. Noel denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.

FOOTNOTES

1 Applicant did not file a response to the government’s File of Relevant Material. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence, in the form of documents explaining the current status of her debts, and the actions she has taken to address her financial problems.1 The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board