CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-23037.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-23037.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-23037.a1

Jan 10, 2008· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant's appeal was subsequently affirmed, upholding the initial denial.

During the appeal process, the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the original decision, which limited the scope of the Board's review. Furthermore, the Board could not consider new evidence pertaining to the applicant's financial situation that was presented during the appeal.

The denial was based on the presence of unresolved financial issues, specifically cited under Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 18, which raised security concerns under Guideline F.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 18raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 23, 2007
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldAug 31, 2007Decision issued by Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman.
Decision dateJan 10, 2008Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Limitations on the Board's Review Authority Regarding Harmful Error Claims
The Inability to Consider New Evidence on Appeal
Financial Considerations as a Basis for Security Clearance Denial 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 was filed by the applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal and instead presented new evidence regarding his financial situation. The Board affirmed the denial as it cannot consider new evidence and no harmful error was alleged.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal and the applicant did not allege any harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is affirmed.

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 DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-23037.a1 DATE: 01/10/2008 DATE: January 10, 2008 In Re: -------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-23037

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 23, 2007, 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 requested the case be decided on the written record. On August 31, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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 which updates his financial situation and indicates that Applicant has paid off, or is continuing to make payments on, the debts set forth in the SOR. Applicant also offers explanations for specific concerns noted by the Judge in his decision. 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