A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-09824.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Nov 24, 2009 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, 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 any harmful error by the judge and that new evidence submitted could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's financial issues raised under Guideline F were not resolved satisfactorily.
- The Appeal Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2009-03-17
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2009-08-31
- Decision date
- 2009-11-24
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence
- Requirement for Alleging 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 was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied their request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error, and the Board affirmed 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 Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-09824.a1 DATE: 11/24/2009 DATE: November 24, 2009 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-09824
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 March 17, 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 August 31, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan 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, i.e., a death certificate, a DD Form 214, character reference letters, and an updated credit report. 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 Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board