A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 11-08679
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 18, 2013 · Administrative Judge Jeffrey D. Billett · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves pro se, 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 harmful error by the Judge and submitted new evidence that could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the Judge.
- The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence submitted after the close of the record.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2012-07-05
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2013-02-20
- Decision date
- 2013-06-18
Cite for
- Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
- Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error
- Financial Considerations Under Guideline 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
The appeal was from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge and instead submitted new evidence that was not considered. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.
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: Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Applicant did not raise an issue of harmful error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 11-08679 DATE: 06/18/2013 DATE: June 18, 2013 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-08679
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 July 5, 2012, 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 February 20, 2013, after the close of the record, 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—bankruptcy records that are dated subsequently to the close of the record in this case. 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