A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-09349.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 12, 2012 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to unresolved financial issues. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge and that new evidence could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had unresolved financial issues that raised security concerns under Guideline F.
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge in his appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2011-06-02
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested adjudication on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2011-09-27 Administrative Judge denied the request for a security clearance.
- Decision date
- 2012-01-12 Appeal 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
The appeal was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial, noting that it could not consider new evidence presented by the applicant.
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 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
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