CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-08174.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-08174.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-08174.a1

deniedDec 5, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, sought a public trust position but was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The Administrative Judge's decision to deny eligibility was affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Disqualifying conditions under Guideline F, specifically AG ¶ 20, were raised regarding the applicant's financial history. While mitigating conditions AG ¶ 21(a) and AG ¶ 21(c) were applied, they were insufficient to overcome the security concerns.

The denial was upheld because the applicant's appeal brief did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. Additionally, new evidence presented by the applicant was not considered by the Appeal Board, leading to the affirmation of the original denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's appeal brief did not assert harmful error by the judge.
New evidence presented was not considered by the Appeal Board.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe judge found in the applicant's favor regarding two satisfied debts, but this did not mitigate the overall trustworthiness concerns.
AG ¶ 21(c)rejectedThe Applicant Has Made Efforts to Repay DebtsThe applicant's payment arrangements with the IRS were current, but this was not sufficient to overcome the trustworthiness concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 13, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 25, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Gina L. Marine.
Decision dateDec 5, 2017Appeal Board affirmed the decision.

Cite For

Affirmation of the Necessity to Assert Harmful Error for Appeal Consideration
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal Process
Trustworthiness Concerns 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.

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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-08174.a1 DATE: 12/5/2017 DATE: December 5, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 15-08174

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 eligibility for a public trust position. On June 13, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On August 25, 2017, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Gina L. Marine denied Applicant eligibility for a public trust position. 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, Applicant asks that the Board reconsider her case and presents new evidence in the form of a narrative statement and supporting documentation. In the narrative statement, Applicant indicates that her payment arrangements with the IRS to satisfy her tax indebtedness have been kept current, that she has disputed two of her non-tax debts and they have now been removed from her credit reports, and that she has satisfied two other non-tax debts. The Judge had found in Applicant’s favor with respect to the two satisfied debts, so they are not at issue on appeal. Applicant’s attached documentation includes correspondence and credit reports that post-date the Judge’s decision in her case. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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