CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-11509.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-11509.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-11509.a1

Nov 7, 2011· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application was ultimately denied, with the decision resting solely on Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant, representing himself, initially faced allegations under both Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F. However, the judge ruled in the applicant's favor regarding Guideline E.

Despite this, the security clearance was denied due to unresolved concerns under Guideline F. The adverse decision was upheld on appeal because the applicant did not assert harmful error in his appeal. Additionally, the Board was unable to consider any new evidence during the appeal process.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20, while Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 21 was applied. Ultimately, the lack of a harmful error assertion on appeal, combined with the Board's inability to review new evidence, led to the final denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21appliedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence in resolving an appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 19, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 31, 2011
Decision dateNov 7, 2011

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on the Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence on Appeal
Requirement for Assertion of Harmful Error for Appeal Consideration

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 allegations under Guideline E and Guideline F. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of harmful error.

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.

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
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

1 The Judge found in favor of Applicant as to the Guideline E allegations. KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant made no assertion of harmful error. The Board cannot consider new evidence in resolving an appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 08-11509.a1 DATE: 11/07/2011 DATE: November 7, 2011 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-11509 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 April 19, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On August 31, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.1 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 documents showing Applicant’s payment history on his outstanding student loans. These documents are dated subsequent to the Judge’s decision, and Applicant states without further explanation that “[he] did not have them in time for the hearing.” 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, 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