A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 09-00776.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 23, 2011 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Appeal Board upheld the denial, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's decision and that new evidence regarding improved circumstances could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision.
- The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2010-03-09
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2011-04-01
- Decision date
- 2011-06-23
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
The appeal was from a denial of 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 adverse decision. The Board noted that it cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
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; 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
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