CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-22633.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-22633.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-22633.a1

Jan 14, 2008· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance primarily due to financial considerations under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The initial denial cited Disqualifying Condition F1.

While the applicant demonstrated improvements in his financial situation and compliance with child support obligations, these mitigating factors were not sufficient to overturn the denial on appeal. The appeal was denied because the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision.

The Board also noted that it could not consider new evidence during the appeal process. Therefore, despite the applicant's efforts to address the financial concerns, the security clearance was ultimately denied based on the procedural grounds of the appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

E3appliedPersonal 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 issuedMar 28, 2007
Answer filed—Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing heldAug 29, 2007
Decision dateJan 14, 2008

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Allegation
Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
Guidance on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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 after being denied due to financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege 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, and the Board's review is limited to such allegations.

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

KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-22633.a1 DATE: 01/14/2008 DATE: January 14, 2008 In Re: ------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-22633

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 March 28, 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 the case be decided on the written record. On August The Judge found in favor of Applicant under Guideline E. That favorable finding is not at issue on appeal. Applicant elected to have his case decided on the administrative record, but did not file a response to the governments file of relevant material (FORM). His new evidence is his explanatory statement and two documentary exhibits: a retiree account statement and a canceled check. 29, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 which updates Applicant’s financial situation and indicates that he has made a payment toward the debt set forth in SOR paragraph 1.a. Applicant also provides new evidence to support a claim that he is paying his child support, and states that he has sought financial counseling, set up a repayment plan for his outstanding debts, and will increase the amount of his payments once he returns to full time work. 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