CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-04745.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-04745.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-04745.a1

Jan 4, 2011· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

This security clearance appeal, self-represented by the applicant, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Board affirmed the original denial, which was based on financial concerns, specifically citing Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The denial was upheld because the applicant failed to assert any harmful error in the initial decision. Additionally, the Board could not consider new evidence submitted during the appeal process, as its review is limited to the record established at the time of the original decision.

Consequently, with no valid appeal argument presented and the original financial concerns remaining unaddressed within the proper appellate framework, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 19, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 30, 2010
Decision dateJan 4, 2011

Cite For

Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error
Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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 financial considerations under 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 belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

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 because the Applicant did not assert any harmful error, and new evidence submitted on appeal could not be considered.

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. The Board cannot consider the new evidence he submitted on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 09-04745.a1 DATE: 01/04/2011 DATE: January 4, 2011 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-04745

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 January 19, 2010, 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 30, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran 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 makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Applicant submitted documents not part of the record below and made factual assertions implying improvements in his finances which he asserts support a granting of his security clearance. 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