A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 09-06306.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 31, 2011 · Administrative Judge Jeffery D. Billett · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The denial was based on the applicant's failure to address financial issues adequately, and the appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision. The Board upheld the denial, stating that new evidence submitted could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision.
- The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2010-04-13
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2010-11-24 Applicant requested decision on written record.
- Decision date
- 2011-01-31
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 was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant's appeal did not assert any harmful error and included new evidence that the Board could not consider. Consequently, the Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.
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: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-06306.a1 DATE: 01/31/2011 DATE: January 31, 2011 In Re: -----. Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-06306
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 April 13, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On November 24, 2010, after considering the record, Administrative Judge David M. White 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 more fully explaining his financial situation and addressing deficiencies in the record noted by the Judge and attributed to Applicant’s election of an administrative determination instead of a 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: Jeffery D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board