A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 12-00914.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 19, 2013 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to unresolved financial issues. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not demonstrate harmful error in the initial decision, despite highlighting her service as a linguist.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had unresolved financial issues that raised security concerns under Guideline F.
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the appeal process.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2012-08-16
- Answer filed
- Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2013-03-26 Decision issued by Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola.
- Decision date
- 2013-07-19 Appeal 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
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.
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: 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
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