A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 11-04418.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 15, 2013 · 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 was denied as the applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge and presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal brief did not assert harmful error by the Judge.
- The new evidence presented by the applicant could not be considered on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2012-06-21
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2012-11-27
- Decision date
- 2013-02-15
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
- Requirement to Assert Harmful Error for Successful Appeal
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 denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the new evidence presented was not admissible. The appeal was denied.
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: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error by the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence, which the Board cannot consider. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 11-04418.a1 DATE: 02/15/2013 DATE: February 15, 2013 In Re: ---------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-04418
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On June 21, 2012, DoD 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 November 27, 2012, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 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 after the hearing he sought out financial counseling and retained an attorney to file for bankruptcy. Through that process he plans to pay off his debts and live within his income. 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, 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