CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07064.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07064.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07064.a1

deniedOct 4, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a trustworthiness designation due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15.

The applicant appealed the decision; however, her appeal brief did not assert any harmful error by the Judge. The Board's review process is strictly limited to addressing allegations of harmful error.

Since no such allegations were made by the applicant in her brief, the Board affirmed the adverse decision, and the applicant's security clearance was ultimately denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's appeal brief did not assert harmful error by the Judge.
The Board's review is limited to allegations of harmful error, which were not made by the applicant.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review a case de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 29, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 18, 2017
Decision dateOct 4, 2017

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Considerations Under Guideline E and Guideline F in Trustworthiness Cases

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

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; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-07064.a1 DATE: 10/4/2017 DATE: October 4, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 15-07064

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 trustworthiness desigation. On June 29, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On July 18, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a narrative statement describing her professional qualifications, explaining that she should have paid more attention to her credit reports to verify delinquencies,1 and indicating that she provided documentation that set forth her objectives in settling her financial delinquencies. She also forwarded some documents that she previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. 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: 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 1 To the extent this statement could be interpreted as a challenge to the Judge’s adverse findings under Guideline E, we note that the Judge analyzed Applicant’s statements to this affect at the hearing, and we see no reason to distribute the Judge’s conclusions.