A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-00486.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 27, 2009 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Appeal Board upheld the denial, noting that the applicant did not assert harmful error and that new evidence regarding her financial status could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the appeal.
- The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2008-04-30
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested decision on written record.
- Hearing held
- 2008-11-20 Decision issued by Administrative Judge.
- Decision date
- 2009-01-27 Appeal 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
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.
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: 08-00486.a1 DATE: 01/27/2009 DATE: January 27, 2009 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-00486
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