CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-02649.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-02649.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-02649.a1

Apr 8, 2011· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on disqualifying conditions raised in AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15.

The applicant appealed the decision; however, the appeal was denied. The Appeal Board's authority is limited to reviewing cases where harmful error by the judge is alleged. In this instance, the applicant did not assert any such error.

Furthermore, new evidence submitted by the applicant during the appeal process was not considered by the Appeal Board, as their review is confined to the record established at the initial hearing. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party alleges the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 12, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 31, 2011
Decision dateApr 8, 2011

Cite For

Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding Harmful Error Claims
Impact of New Evidence on Appeal Decisions
Criteria for Denial Under Guideline E and 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 filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in her appeal brief.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, which is necessary for the Board to review the case.

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; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party alleges the Judge committed harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-02649.a1 DATE: 04/08/2011 DATE: April 8, 2011 In Re: ----------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-02649

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 August 12, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On January 31, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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 that she is making regular monthly payments on her credit cards, that her husband now handles their finances, and that loss of her job would result in tremendous hardship. 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: 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