CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-00914.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-00914.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-00914.a1

Jul 19, 2013· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· 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 AG ¶ 20.

During the appeal process, the applicant highlighted her service as a linguist but did not assert that the initial decision contained harmful error. Consequently, the appeal was affirmed, and the denial of the security clearance was upheld.

The core reason for the denial was the applicant's failure to resolve the financial issues that raised security concerns, coupled with the absence of a demonstrated harmful error in the initial adjudication.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 16, 2012
Answer filed—Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing heldMar 26, 2013Decision issued by Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola.
Decision dateJul 19, 2013Appeal affirmed by the Board.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on the Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence on Appeal
Requirement for Asserting Harmful Error for Successful 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied their request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board found that the applicant did not assert any harmful error, leading to the affirmation of the denial. The Board emphasized that it cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any specific harmful error.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not allege any specific harmful error, and the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealNo de-novo re-decisionHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
James E. Moody

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: The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 12-00914.a1 DATE: 07/19/2013 DATE: July 19, 2013 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-00914

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 August 16, 2012, 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 elected to have his case decided on the written record. On March 26, 2013, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no explicit assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. She makes a statement, however, wherein she asserted that she is an American citizen and it was her duty and honor to serve with the United States Army as a linguist. She stated that she stood by the side of soldiers and made sure to do her job as a linguist to keep everyone safe. These assertions made by Applicant on appeal go beyond the evidence in the record below, although they do serve to point out that Applicant is working as a linguist in Afghanistan, which is included in the record, and is a fact that the Judge’s decision does not contain. The Judge’s failure to mention Applicant’s service as a linguist is not harmful on this record, even if the Board construes it as error. The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. The Board does not review cases de novo. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board