CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-09349.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-09349.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-09349.a1

Jan 12, 2012· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition F.1, indicating that the applicant had significant financial problems that raised security concerns.

Upon appeal, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. The Board noted that the applicant did not assert any harmful error committed by the judge during the initial adjudication process. Furthermore, the Board clarified that new evidence could not be introduced or considered at the appellate stage.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, with the decision resting on the applicant's unresolved financial issues and the lack of asserted judicial error in the appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 2, 2011
Answer filed—Applicant requested adjudication on the written record.
Hearing heldSep 27, 2011Administrative Judge denied the request for a security clearance.
Decision dateJan 12, 2012Appeal Board affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding Harmful Error
Pro Se Representation in Security Clearance Cases

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 from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and provided new evidence that was not part of the original record. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJoan Caton Anthony — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant made no assertion of 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.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
James E. Moody

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 DIGEST: The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-09349.a1 DATE: 01/12/2012 DATE: January 12, 2012 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-09349

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 June 2, 2011, 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 his case be adjudicated on the written record. On September 27, 2011, after the close of the record, Administrative Judge Joan Caton Anthony 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. His brief asserts that he has resolved his financial issues, and sets forth other reasons why his case should be adjudicated favorably. Some of Applicant’s representations contain facts not part of the record below. The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, 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. 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board