A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 05-02415.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 19, 2007 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant's new evidence could not be considered on appeal as it did not assert harmful error by the judge.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge in the appeal.
- The new evidence presented by the applicant was not considered on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2005-10-31
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2006-10-31 Decision made based on written record.
- Decision date
- 2007-04-19
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
The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and instead presented new evidence, which the Board could not consider. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.
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; 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
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