CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-08679 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-08679denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-08679

Oct 2, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition F1, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations.

During the appeal process, the applicant, representing herself, did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. This limited the scope of review for the Appeal Board. Additionally, new evidence submitted by the applicant during the appeal was not considered, as it was not part of the original record.

Ultimately, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance, concluding that the applicant had failed to mitigate the financial concerns that raised security risks under Guideline F.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 26, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 26, 2009Decision made by Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone.
Decision dateOct 2, 2009Appeal 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal was from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any specific harmful error in the appeal. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the appeal did not meet the necessary criteria for review.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — 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 specific assertion of harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision of the Judge because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to the errors claimed by the appealing party, and new evidence cannot be considered on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

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

APPEARANCES

DATE: October 2, 2009 In Re: -------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-08679

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 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