CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-06930.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-06930.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-06930.a1

Jan 21, 2011· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to his failure to provide requested evidence regarding his financial situation. The applicant did not submit additional documentation before the record was closed, leading to the initial denial.

Upon appeal, the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error by the judge or the Department Counsel. Consequently, the Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance. The decision was based solely on the applicant's inability to provide the necessary financial evidence and his subsequent failure to identify procedural errors in the initial ruling.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 17, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 29, 2010
Decision dateJan 21, 2011

Cite For

Failure to Submit Evidence Can Lead to Denial Under Guideline F
Applicant's Burden to Demonstrate Harmful Error on Appeal
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority

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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant claimed that he mistakenly sent additional evidence to the wrong email address after the hearing. The Board affirmed the denial, stating that it could not consider new evidence on appeal and that the applicant did not assert any harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowClaude R. Heiny — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted that he mistakenly sent evidence to the wrong e-mail address.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error resulting from the Judge's actions or the actions of Department Counsel.

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: On appeal Applicant asserts that after the hearing he mistakenly sent evidence to the wrong e-mail address which is why the Judge never received it. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. Applicant has not asserted that there was a harmful resulting from actions taken by DOHA personnel. Adverse decision affirmed CASENO: 09-06930.a1 DATE: 01/21/2011 DATE: January 24, 2011 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-06930

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 17, 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 October 29, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Judge held the record open to give Applicant time to submit additional documentary evidence concerning his financial situation. Tr. at 61. No additional evidence was received before the record was closed and the decision issued. Decision at 2. On appeal, Applicant asserts that he mistakenly e-mailed his additional evidence to the wrong address, and encloses copies of the misaddressed e-mail and the additional evidence. He argues that the Judge’s decision is in error because the Judge’s failure to receive the additional evidence would be viewed as a lack of interest or dedication on Applicant’s part to follow directions. 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. It does not review cases de novo. Although he uses the term “error,” Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error resulting from actions taken by the Judge or Department Counsel. 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board