CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-02404.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-02404.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-02404.a1

Jul 19, 2010· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial was based on a finding that she had lost her home to foreclosure, a key factor in the judge's decision.

On appeal, the applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision. She also submitted additional evidence, but this was not considered by the Appeal Board because it was not part of the original record.

The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance, upholding the judge's finding regarding the foreclosure.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 3, 2009
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldApr 30, 2010Decision made by Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley.
Decision dateJul 19, 2010Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals
Limitations on New Evidence During 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 involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not claim any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and submitted new evidence that was not considered. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline 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 as the applicant did not assert any harmful error and submitted additional 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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant made no assertion of harmful error. She did submit additional evidence not contained in the record, which the Board cannot consider. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-02404.a1 DATE: 07/19/2010 DATE: July 19, 2010 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-02404

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 December 3, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On April 30, 2010, after reviewing the record, Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Without claiming that the Judge erred, Applicant makes a factual statement on appeal that she has never lost her home to foreclosure. A review of the Judge’s decision reveals that the Judge made a finding of fact that Applicant lost her home to foreclosure. To the extent that Applicant’s factual statement can be construed as a claim of error, it fails to establish error on the part of the Judge. Applicant submitted a document entitled “Forbearance Agreement/Stipulation” as part of her submission to the File of Relevant Material. The document purports to be an agreement between Applicant and her lender to cure her mortgage loan default and reinstate her mortgage to good standing. The Judge specifically mentioned the document in his decision and noted that it was an unexecuted document. The document contains Applicant’s signature but not the signature of the mortgagee. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.1 Applicant does offer additional written materials which she asserts support a reversal of the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision. However, the Board may not consider 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. The Board does not review cases de novo. 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