A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-05950
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 9, 2009 · 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 allege any harmful error in the initial decision, and new evidence was not considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had unresolved financial issues that raised security concerns under Guideline F.
- The appeal did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2009-01-28
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2009-07-29
- Decision date
- 2009-10-09
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Affirmation of Denial on Appeal Without Assertion of Harmful Error
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence
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 seeking a security clearance after being denied by DOHA due to financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance as there were no allegations of harmful error.
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
Appearances
DATE: October 9, 2009 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-05950
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 January 28, 2009, 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 a hearing. On July 29, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr. denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no substantive matters and makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. The Board does not review cases de novo. Additionally, Applicant’s appeal submission makes reference to matters that were not part of the record below. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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: Jeffery D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board