CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-06289.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-06289.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-06289.a1

Feb 1, 2011· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from disqualifying conditions raised under AG ¶ 20.

The applicant appealed the decision, presenting new evidence related to the judicial sale of a house he co-signed with his father. This evidence had not been presented during the initial hearing. However, the appeal was denied because the applicant did not allege any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

The Board further clarified that it could not consider new evidence introduced for the first time during the appeal process. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 6, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 22, 2010
Decision dateFeb 1, 2011

Cite For

Limitations on the Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence on Appeal
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error in Appeals
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 involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision and instead 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 belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error and presented new evidence that could not 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 DIGEST: Applicant submits evidence which, although several months old, was not presented to the Judge and is, therefore, new evidence for our purposes. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-06289.a1 DATE: 02/01/2011 DATE: February 1, 2011 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-06289

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 May 6, 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 November 22, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 and a state court record referencing the judicial sale of a house for which Applicant had co-signed on the mortgage with his father. The sale had apparently occurred nine months prior to the hearing, but Applicant did not become aware of it until after the hearing. 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: Jeffery D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board