CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-02367.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-02367.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02367.a1

Jul 17, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied a clearance primarily due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The judge affirmed the denial, emphasizing the necessity of reviewing the applicant's financial history.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to provide sufficient corroborating documentation to support her financial claims. While Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20 was raised, Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 21 was applied.

Ultimately, the lack of adequate documentation and the judge's appropriate review of the applicant's credit history led to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's narrative statement and post-decision documents were not considered as they were submitted after the case was decided.

Key Rule Quoted

“In a Guideline F case it is necessary and appropriate for the Judge to review an applicant’s financial history.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 30, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldApr 24, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy.
Decision dateJul 17, 2017Affirmed by Appeal Board.

Cite For

Necessity of Reviewing Financial History Under Guideline F
Lack of Corroborating Documentation as a Basis for Denial
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal Process

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 involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision, leading the Board to affirm the denial.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBraden M. Murphy — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Judge's review of the Applicant's financial history was deemed appropriate under Guideline F.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. 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; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant does say it is wrong for the Judge to have looked at her past credit. In a Guideline F case it is necessary and appropriate for the Judge to review an applicant’s financial history. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-02367.a1 DATE: 07/17/2017 DATE: July 17, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-02367

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 September 30, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security 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 decision on the written record. On April 24, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1 Applicant requested that her case be decided on the written record and then filed only a narrative statement in response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). The Judge based his adverse decision in the case in large measure on the lack of corroborating documentation to support Applicant’s statements. Decision at 3. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.2 Rather, it contains a detailed submission that includes a narrative statement by the Applicant explaining her current financial situation as well as documentary exhibits corroborating the extent to which her debts have been paid off or paid down. Most of these documents post-date the submission of her case for decision. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, 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

FOOTNOTES

1 The Judge found in favor of Applicant under Guideline E. That favorable finding is not at issue on appeal.

2 Applicant does say it was wrong for the Judge to have looked at her past credit. In a Guideline F case it is necessary and appropriate for the Judge to review an applicant’s financial history.