CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-10211.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-10211.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-10211.a1

May 1, 2017· Hon. James E. Moody· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a disqualifying condition, F.1. The applicant appealed this decision.

The appeal was subsequently denied because the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Additionally, the Appeal Board could not consider new evidence that had not been presented during the original hearing.

Therefore, the security clearance was ultimately denied based on the financial considerations and the procedural limitations of the appeal process.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedDec 11, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 22, 2017
Decision dateMay 1, 2017

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief raises no allegation of 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 presented in the appeal.

Appeal Board panel

James E. Moody
William S. Fields
James F. Duffy

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 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

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 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