CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-00486.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-00486.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-00486.a1

Jan 27, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), specifically due to Disqualifying Condition F.1. The Appeal Board upheld this denial.

The Board's decision was based on two key factors. First, the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the initial decision during her appeal. Second, the Appeal Board is unable to consider new evidence regarding an applicant's financial status when reviewing an appeal.

Consequently, without an assertion of harmful error or the ability to introduce new financial information at the appellate stage, the denial of the security clearance was sustained.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 30, 2008
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldNov 20, 2008Decision issued by Administrative Judge.
Decision dateJan 27, 2009Appeal Board affirmed denial.

Cite For

Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals
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 who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed without alleging any harmful error, instead submitting new evidence regarding her financial situation. The Board affirmed the denial as it could not consider new evidence and found no harmful error alleged.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJoseph Testan — 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 affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error and presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Michael D. Hipple
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

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-00486.a1 DATE: 01/27/2009 DATE: January 27, 2009 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-00486

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 April 30, 2008, 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 November 20, 2008, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Joseph Testan 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 an explanatory statement and documentary exhibits, which updates Applicant’s financial situation and indicates that she has paid off or is attempting to resolve her outstanding debts. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s 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: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed; William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board