CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-24750.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-24750.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-24750.a1

Nov 23, 2007· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The initial denial cited Disqualifying Condition F1, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations.

The applicant appealed the decision; however, the appeal was ultimately denied. The Board's review was limited because the applicant did not assert harmful error in the initial decision. Furthermore, new evidence presented by the applicant during the appeal process could not be considered by the Board.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, as the applicant's financial issues remained unresolved and the procedural limitations of the appeal prevented a different outcome.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The adverse impact of a clearance decision on an applicant is not relevant or material to an applicant’s security eligibility.”
— ISCR Case No. 03-21012 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2005)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 30, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 30, 2007
Decision dateNov 23, 2007

Cite For

Limitations on the Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence
Relevance of Financial Stability Under Guideline F
Impact of Adverse Decisions on Security Eligibility Is Not a Mitigating Factor

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 Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not assert any harmful error and that new evidence presented was not admissible on appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJacqueline T. Williams — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

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

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 cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
William S. Fields

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY When unredacted this document contains information EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA Exemption 6 applies KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-24750.a1 DATE: 11/23/2007 DATE: November 23, 2007 In Re: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-24750

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 30, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) Applicant also states that if she loses her clearance, she will be forced to go on unemployment again and will not be able to afford her daily medications. The adverse impact of a clearance decision on an applicant is not relevant or material to an applicant’s security eligibility. See ISCR Case No. 03-21012 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2005). of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On July 30, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Jacqueline T. Williams 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 in the form of a statement from Applicant and attachments that indicate Applicant has received a pay raise, has paid off one of her outstanding debts, and has contacted her creditors to make arrangements to pay off the remaining ones. 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board