A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 05-06059.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 2, 2007 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The appeal board affirmed the denial of her clearance due to a lack of harmful error assertion and the introduction of new evidence that could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal did not assert harmful error by the judge.
- The appeal included new evidence that was not permissible for consideration.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2005-10-28
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2006-07-24
- Decision date
- 2007-03-02
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
- Requirement for Assertion of Harmful Error for Appeal Consideration
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 was from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision, leading the Board to affirm the denial.
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: Applicant’s brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 05-06059.a1 DATE: 03/02/2007 DATE: March 2, 2007 In Re: ---------- SSN:------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 05-06059
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT Melvin A. Howry, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On October 28, 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 July 24, 2006, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Barry M. Sax denied Applicant asserts the Judge erred in finding that she is a “secretary for a defense contractor,” when in fact she is a “warehouse clerk.” This error is harmless. Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed the Judge’s unfavorable clearance decision. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.1 Rather, it contains new evidence, in the form of a statement from the Applicant and six character reference letters. It also contains a request for a 30 day continuance, so that Applicant can resolve her financial problems by filing for bankruptcy. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s 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, and has no authority to continue Applicant’s case to allow her the opportunity to work on her financial problems. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-03907 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 18, 2006). 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