CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07971.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07971.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07971.a1

Jul 26, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F1.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was affirmed, and the denial upheld. The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Instead, her appeal consisted solely of a narrative detailing her employment history and efforts to resolve her financial issues, without presenting any new evidence for consideration.

Because the applicant failed to demonstrate judicial error or provide new information to mitigate the financial concerns, the initial denial of her security clearance was sustained.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 20, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 12, 2017decided on the written record
Decision dateJul 26, 2017

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Asserted
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal
Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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 Department of Defense denied her security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in her appeal. The decision stands as issued by the Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert J. Kilmartin — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion 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 on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
William S. Fields

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 contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a narrative statement in which Applicant references her excellent employment history and her ongoing efforts to resolve her financial problems. The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-07971.a1 DATE: 07/26/2017 DATE: July 26, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-07971

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 April 20, 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 decided on the written record. On May 12, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the 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 in which Applicant references her excellent employment history and her ongoing efforts to resolve her financial problems. The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, the Board does not review a case de novo. The 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board