CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-00776.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-00776.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-00776.a1

Jun 23, 2011· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial was upheld by the Appeal Board.

The Board noted that the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's initial decision. Furthermore, the Board was unable to consider new evidence presented by the applicant regarding improved financial circumstances, as appellate review is limited to the record established at the initial hearing.

The denial was specifically linked to disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15. Ultimately, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 9, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 1, 2011
Decision dateJun 23, 2011

Cite For

Upholding Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in Appeal Process

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 his request for a security clearance based on financial and personal conduct concerns. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision, leading the Board to affirm the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge’s decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and new evidence cannot be considered on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge’s decision. Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 09-00776.a1 DATE: 06/23/2011 DATE: June 23, 2011 In Re: --------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-00776

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 9, 2010, 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 April 1, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher 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, in the form of a statement by the Applicant that his situation has improved as a result of his filing for bankruptcy. 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board