A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-18411.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 15, 2008 · Administrative Judge Jeffrey D. Billett · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the initial decision, and new evidence regarding financial management was not considered by the Appeal Board.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the appeal.
- The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence presented on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
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
- 2007-04-09
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-09-27
- Decision date
- 2008-02-15
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations on New Evidence Consideration in Appeals
- Criteria for Review by the Appeal Board Under 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 involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm the Administrative Judge's decision.
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; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant has not made a claim of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-18411.a1 DATE: 02/15/2008 DATE: February 15, 2008 In Re: ------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-18411
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 April 9, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On September 27, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, it contains new evidence in the form of statements that Applicant intends to take financial management classes and that he has avoided acquiring new debt. 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 clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett 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