CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-09539.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-09539.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-09539.a1

May 8, 2017· Hon. James E. Moody· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to insufficient evidence of financial stability and unresolved debts. The initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20, while Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 21 was applied.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to provide independent evidence of current financial stability. On appeal, the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge, which is a requirement for a successful appeal.

Ultimately, the appeal was denied because the Board cannot consider new evidence introduced at the appellate stage. The original decision to deny the security clearance was therefore upheld.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21notedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 2, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldFeb 16, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul.
Decision dateMay 8, 2017Appeal 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· 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 in the appeal. The Board noted that it cannot consider new evidence submitted by the Applicant after the decision was made.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMartin H. Mogul — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

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

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy
James E. Moody
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’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

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 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