Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

ISCR Case No. 12-09539.a1

Appeal Board

Decided May 8, 2017 · Administrative Judge James E. Moody · Appeal

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to insufficient evidence of financial stability and unresolved debts. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, and new evidence could not be considered on appeal.

Why the applicant was denied

  • The applicant failed to provide independent evidence of current financial stability.
  • The applicant's appeal brief did not assert harmful error by the judge.
  • The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

  • AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised

Mitigating

  • AG ¶ 21 Financial Considerationsnoted

Key rule quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural posture

SOR issued
2015-12-02
Answer filed
Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held
2017-02-16 Decision made by Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul.
Decision date
2017-05-08 Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite for

  • Insufficient Evidence of Financial Stability Under Guideline F
  • Limitations on the Board's Review Authority Regarding Harmful Error
  • New Evidence Cannot Be Considered on 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

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 as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in her appeal. The Board noted that it cannot consider new evidence submitted by the Applicant after the initial decision.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

Synopsis

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 12-09539.a1 DATE: 05/08/2017 DATE: May 8, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-09539

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 December 2, 2015, 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 February 16, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant requested that her case be decided on the written record and then did not respond to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). The Judge based his adverse decision in the case in large measure on the lack of independent evidence about Applicant’s current financial stability and the extent to which individual debts had been resolved or reduced. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a detailed narrative statement by the Applicant explaining her current financial situation as well as her previous and ongoing efforts to resolve individual SOR debts. As part of her submission she includes documents relating to her debts that post-date the submission of her case for decision. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, the Board does not review a case 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board