A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-17209.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Nov 14, 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 Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge and that new evidence presented could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had unresolved financial issues that raised security concerns under Guideline F.
- The applicant's appeal did not assert harmful error by the judge, limiting the Appeal Board's review.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2006-11-29
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-06-13
- Decision date
- 2007-11-14
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Importance of 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 an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm 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 Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-17209.a1 DATE: 11/14/2007 DATE: November 14, 2007 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-17209
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 November 29, 2006, 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 The Judge found in favor of Applicant with respect to SOR paragraphs 1.b and 1.c. Those favorable findings are not at issue on appeal. requested a hearing. On June 13, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 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 Applicant that he has contacted his creditors and come up with a workable plan for paying off his remaining debts. 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: Jeffery D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board