ISCR Case No. 16-02367.a1

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

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

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.