A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-08679
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 2, 2009 · 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 did not assert any harmful error by the judge and included new evidence that was not considered, leading to the affirmation of the denial by the Appeal Board.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant failed to resolve financial issues that raised security concerns under Guideline F.
- The appeal did not assert harmful error by the judge, limiting the Board's review.
- New evidence presented on appeal was not considered as it was outside the record.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2009-01-26
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2009-06-26 Decision made by Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone.
- Decision date
- 2009-10-02 Appeal affirmed by the Board.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence
- Requirement for Asserting Harmful Error for Successful Appeal
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. The applicant did not assert any specific 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
Appearances
DATE: October 2, 2009 In Re: -------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-08679
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 26, 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 decision on the written record. On June 26, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no specific assertion of harmful error by the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence not contained in the record concerning her marital separation, her husband’s employment difficulties, and her trustworthiness. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. The Board does not review cases de novo. 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board