A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-07971.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 26, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge and provided only a narrative of her employment history and efforts to resolve her financial issues.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge.
- The appeal contained only a narrative statement without new evidence.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-04-20
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-05-12 decided on the written record
- Decision date
- 2017-07-26
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
The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm the Administrative Judge's decision.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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