A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 12-10211.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 1, 2017 · Administrative Judge James E. Moody · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge and presented new evidence not considered during the original hearing.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege any harmful error on the part of the Judge.
- The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence not presented during the original hearing.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-12-11
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-03-22
- Decision date
- 2017-05-01
Cite for
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error
- Impact of New Evidence on Appeal Outcomes
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 Appeal Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not raise any allegations of harmful error in her 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: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains information that she did not previously present to the Judge. The Appeal Board can neither receive nor consider this new evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 12-10211.a1 DATE: 05/01/2017 DATE: May 1, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No.12-10211
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 11, 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 hearing. On March 22, 2017, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains information that she did not previously present to the Judge. The Appeal Board can neither receive nor consider this new evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review cases 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. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board