A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 05-00775.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 8, 2007 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The appeal was based on new evidence regarding his financial status, but the Board affirmed the denial due to the lack of harmful error claims against the original judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge in his appeal.
- The appeal included new evidence that could not be considered by the Board.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2005-12-12
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2006-09-27
- Decision date
- 2007-03-08
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations on the Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence
- Requirement for Alleging Harmful Error for Successful Appeals
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 a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant, representing himself, did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial as the appeal did not present grounds for reversal.
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: The Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 05-00775.a1 DATE: 03/08/2007 DATE: March 8, 2007 In Re: ----- SSN: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 05-00775
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 12, 2005, DOHA 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 September 27, 2006, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro 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 new evidence, in the form of a statement from the Applicant, which summarizes the favorable evidence he presented below, and explains that he is current on his recent debts and is continuing his efforts to resolve his financial problems. The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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. It does not review cases de novo. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board