CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-09824.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-09824.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-09824.a1

Nov 24, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to unresolved financial considerations under Guideline F. The Administrative Judge's decision to deny the clearance was based on the applicant's failure to satisfactorily resolve these financial issues.

The applicant appealed this decision, but the Appeal Board upheld the denial. The Board noted that the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's original decision. Furthermore, new evidence submitted by the applicant during the appeal process could not be considered by the Board.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied, with the Appeal Board affirming that the financial issues raised under Guideline F, specifically Disqualifying Condition F1, remained a valid basis for the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 17, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 31, 2009
Decision dateNov 24, 2009

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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 included new evidence that the Board could not consider. Consequently, the Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowErin C. Hogan — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error and presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
William S. Fields

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

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

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 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