CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-02415.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-02415.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-02415.a1

Apr 19, 2007· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The initial denial was based on specific disqualifying conditions related to these guidelines.

Upon appeal, the applicant presented new evidence; however, this evidence was not considered by the Appeal Board. The Board affirmed the denial, stating that the applicant failed to assert any harmful error made by the judge in the initial decision.

Consequently, the Appeal Board upheld the original denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 31, 2005
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 31, 2006Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateApr 19, 2007

Cite For

Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence
Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial and Personal Conduct Issues
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in 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 involved an applicant seeking a security clearance, which was denied by the Administrative Judge based on security concerns under Guideline F and Guideline E. The applicant appealed but did not assert any harmful error, leading the Board to affirm the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowHenry Lazzaro — 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 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

Michael D. Hipple
Jean E. Smallin
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: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 05-02415.a1 DATE: 04/19/2007 DATE: April19, 2007 In Re: ---------- SSN: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 05-02415

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 October 31, 2005, DOHA 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On October 31, 2006, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 The Judge found in favor of Applicant with respect to SOR ¶ 2.a. That favorable finding is not at issue on appeal. and E3.1.30.1 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 has now resolved five of the accounts listed in the SOR, has established a payment plan with respect to the balance of his indebtedness, pays his current bills in a timely manner, and has continued to have a solid record of excellent job performance and service to the defense community. 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: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board