KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge is impartial and unbiased, and a party
seeking to overcome that presumption has a heavy burden of persuasion. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 15-03981.a1
DATE: 08/14/2018
DATE: August 14, 2018
In Re:
-------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-03981
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
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
December 11,  2015, 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 a hearing. 
On May 2, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Paul Mason denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant stated that she disagreed with the Judge’s ruling and indicated that she gave him
all the information he had requested but was not sure what she gave him.1  She requested that her
case be evaluated by someone else and stated, “I was uncomfortable with the judge.  I felt looked
down on and it was probably just me but it was not a good feeling.”  Appeal Brief at 1.  To the
extent that she may be arguing the Judge was biased against her, we do not find that argument
persuasive.  There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge is impartial and unbiased, and a party
seeking to overcome that presumption has a heavy burden of persuasion.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
12-10122 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 22, 2016).  Applicant has failed to establish any error that warrants
remand of her case.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.33.2.
Applicant’s appeal brief raises no other allegation of error on the part of the Judge.  The
Board does not review cases 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.  Because
Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a
security clearance is sustainable.  
1 In her appeal brief, Applicant actually stated, “I am not sure what I did not give him.”
2
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan        
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody          
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy             
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3