CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-00775.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-00775.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-00775.a1

Mar 8, 2007· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F1.

The applicant appealed the decision, submitting new evidence regarding his financial status. However, the Board could not consider this new evidence during the appeal process. Crucially, the applicant did not assert any claims of harmful error by the original judge in his appeal.

Consequently, the Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance, as the appeal did not demonstrate any procedural or substantive errors in the initial decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 12, 2005
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 27, 2006
Decision dateMar 8, 2007

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal was from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm the Administrative Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowHenry Lazzaro — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Jean E. Smallin
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

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 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

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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