CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-04740.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-04740.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-04740.a1

Sep 22, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial was based on disqualifying condition F.1, which addresses financial difficulties.

While the applicant claimed an improved financial status and completion of credit counseling, the Board affirmed the initial denial. The Board noted that mitigating condition F.2, which considers resolution of financial issues, was applied. However, the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge during the initial decision process.

The Board's decision to uphold the denial was also influenced by its inability to consider new evidence presented during the appeal. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

F.2rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's claims of improved financial status were not considered as new evidence could not be introduced on appeal.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot receive or consider any new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 7, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 7, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason.
Decision dateSep 22, 2017Appeal affirmed by the Board.

Cite For

Limitations on Introducing New Evidence on Appeal
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Claimed

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 denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error. The appeal was limited to the existing record without consideration of new evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — 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 allege any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
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: The Board cannot receive or consider any new evidence on appeal. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 12-04740.a1 DATE: 09/22/2017 DATE: September 22, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-04740

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 7, 2014, 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 July 7, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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 contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a narrative statement in which Applicant states that her financial status has improved due to a recent promotion and the steady growth of her husband’s business. Additionally, she has completed credit counseling and is in the process of starting a debt repayment plan. She notes that with the exception of financial difficulties, she is a model citizen and employee. The Board cannot receive or consider any new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, the Board does not review a case de novo. The 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 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board