A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-10663.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 3, 2007 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to unresolved financial issues. The appeal was denied as it did not assert harmful error and included new evidence that could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not respond to the government's file of relevant material.
- The applicant's appeal did not assert harmful error on the part of the Judge.
- The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2006-08-16
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested decision on written record.
- Hearing held
- 2007-04-11 Decision issued by Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch.
- Decision date
- 2007-10-03 Appeal 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
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 Administrative Judge's decision and submitted new evidence that was not permissible for consideration on appeal. 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
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
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