A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 09-04745.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 4, 2011 · Administrative Judge Jeffrey D. Billett · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error and submitted new evidence that could not be considered. The Board affirmed the denial based on the lack of a valid appeal argument and the financial concerns raised in the original decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant made no assertion of harmful error on appeal.
- The Board cannot consider new evidence submitted on appeal.
- The original denial was based on financial concerns under Guideline F.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2010-01-19
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2010-08-30
- Decision date
- 2011-01-04
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
The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant, representing himself, did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial as it could not consider new evidence submitted 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 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
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