CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-04572.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-04572.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04572.a1

Nov 7, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), with the Appeal Board affirming the denial. The Board's review is limited to allegations of harmful error by the Judge, and the applicant did not raise any such claims.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.1. The applicant's appeal primarily introduced new information that had not been presented during the initial adjudication. Because the Appeal Board's function is to review for harmful error in the prior decision, and not to consider new evidence, the Board upheld the original denial.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied due to the applicant's failure to demonstrate harmful error in the initial decision and the presentation of new information on appeal.

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 issuedJun 8, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 21, 2017Decision issued by Judge Edward W. Loughran
Decision dateNov 7, 2017Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Importance of Alleging Harmful Error for Successful Appeals

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 under Guideline F. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review was limited to the claims made by the Applicant, and new evidence could not be considered.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant raised 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's review is limited to such allegations. The Board cannot consider new evidence presented on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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: 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-04572.a1 DATE: 11/7/2017 DATE: November 7, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-04572

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 June 8, 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 August 21, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran 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 primarily consists of information that she did not previously present to the Judge. The Appeal Board can neither receive nor consider new evidence on appeal. 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 such 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board