A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-07473.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 5, 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, including a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The Appeal Board upheld the denial, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's decision and that new evidence could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision.
- The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence submitted on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2008-11-04
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2009-05-29
- Decision date
- 2009-08-05
Cite for
- Upholding Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals
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 due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm the denial of the security clearance.
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 Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-07473.a1 DATE: 08/05/2009 DATE: August 5, 2009 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-07473
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 November 4, 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 a hearing. On May 29, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry 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 documentary exhibits, which indicate that Applicant filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy subsequent to the decision in his case. 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 Member, 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