A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-23037.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 10, 2008 · 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 was affirmed as the applicant did not assert any harmful error, and new evidence regarding his financial situation could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had unresolved financial issues that raised security concerns under Guideline F.
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the appeal, limiting the Board's review.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 18 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2007-03-23
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested decision on written record.
- Hearing held
- 2007-08-31 Decision issued by Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman.
- Decision date
- 2008-01-10 Appeal 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
The appeal was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error and instead included new evidence regarding his financial situation, which the Board could not consider. The Board affirmed 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
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
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