CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-18411.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-18411.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-18411.a1

Feb 15, 2008· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The initial decision cited disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15.

The applicant appealed the denial. However, the appeal was unsuccessful because the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the initial decision. Additionally, the Appeal Board was unable to consider new evidence regarding financial management that the applicant presented during the appeal process.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, as the Appeal Board's review is limited to identifying harmful errors in the original decision and does not permit the introduction of new evidence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

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 issuedApr 9, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 27, 2007
Decision dateFeb 15, 2008

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant did not claim any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error. The appeal was limited to the issues raised by the applicant, and new evidence presented was not considered.

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
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; 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

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 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