CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-10663.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-10663.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-10663.a1

Oct 3, 2007· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The government initially raised Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The denial was based on several factors. The applicant failed to respond to the government's file of relevant material, which is a critical step in the clearance process. Furthermore, the applicant's subsequent appeal did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge who made the initial decision.

The appeal was ultimately denied because it included new evidence that the Board could not consider. Security clearance appeals are limited to reviewing the existing record for errors, and new evidence cannot be introduced at that stage.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 16, 2006
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldApr 11, 2007Decision issued by Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch.
Decision dateOct 3, 2007Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error
Burden of Proof in Security Clearance Cases

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 Judge's decision and instead submitted new evidence, which the Board could not consider. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

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 decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge and presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY When unredacted this document contains information EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA Exemption 6 applies KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-10663.a1 DATE: 10/03/2007 DATE: October 3, 2007 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-10663

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 August 16, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) Applicant requested that the case be decided upon the written record, and then did not respond to the government’s file of relevant material. The Judge based her decision upon the record that was before her, noting that: “With the government’s case established, the burden shifts to Applicant to present evidence of refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against him.” Decision at 5. of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record. On April 11, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch 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: (a) a document from the Internal Revenue Service showing the current amount still owed by Applicant, (b) a document from the State of Wisconsin showing Applicant has paid off his outstanding back taxes, interests, penalties and fees, and (c) a statement by the Applicant explaining the origin and circumstances of 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, 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