CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-03061.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-03061.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-03061.a1

Apr 6, 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 F1.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the Appeal Board affirmed the original denial. The Board noted that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Additionally, the Board could not consider new evidence presented during the appeal process, as it had not been presented to the original judge.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, as the Appeal Board found no basis to overturn the judge's decision given the lack of alleged harmful error and the inability to consider new evidence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party has asserted that the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 10, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 30, 2017Applicant requested decision on written record.
Decision dateApr 6, 2017Appeal Board affirmed the decision.

Cite For

Limitations on Appeal Regarding Harmful Error Allegations
New Evidence Not Considered by the Appeal Board
Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Claims

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 seeking a security clearance after the Department of Defense denied the request based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial as the Applicant's appeal did not raise any issues of harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip S. Howe — 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 raise an issue of harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, and since none were presented, the original decision stands.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
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 did not raise an issue of harmful error. Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party has asserted that the Judge committed harmful error. Adverse decision affirm. CASE NO: 15-03061.a1 DATE: 04/06/2017 DATE: April 6, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No.15-03061

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 February 10, 2016, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On January 30, 2017, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In the Appeal Brief, Applicant raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, she stated that she is appealing to present favorable information that she did not previously present to the Judge. She attached documents to her Appeal Brief that constitute new evidence, which the Appeal Board can neither receive nor consider. 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: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, 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