CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-06059.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-06059.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-06059.a1

Mar 2, 2007· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The appeal board affirmed this denial.

The denial stemmed from two key issues with the applicant's appeal. First, the applicant did not assert that the judge made any harmful error in the initial decision. Second, the appeal included new evidence that, according to established procedures, could not be considered at the appeal stage.

Consequently, due to the absence of an assertion of harmful error and the submission of inadmissible new evidence, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedOct 28, 2005
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 24, 2006
Decision dateMar 2, 2007

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBarry M. Sax — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the appeal contained new evidence that could not be considered.

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: 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

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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