A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-24750.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Nov 23, 2007 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to unresolved financial issues. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert harmful error and presented new evidence that could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's financial issues under Guideline F were not resolved.
- The appeal did not assert harmful error, limiting the Board's review.
- New evidence presented on appeal was not considered by the Board.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The adverse impact of a clearance decision on an applicant is not relevant or material to an applicant’s security eligibility.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2007-03-30
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-07-30
- Decision date
- 2007-11-23
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
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.
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
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
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