CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-00635.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-00635.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-00635.a1

Jan 17, 2008· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the judge's initial decision.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F1, which addresses financial difficulties. While Mitigating Condition F3, indicating the applicant resolved the debt, was considered, it was not sufficient to overcome the security concerns.

The Appeal Board's decision to uphold the denial was further influenced by its inability to consider new evidence presented by the applicant during the appeal process. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

F3notedDebt Management

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 30, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Decision dateJan 17, 2008

Cite For

Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding Harmful Error Allegations
Impact of New Evidence on Appeal
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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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 his appeal, leading the Board to affirm the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

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 DIGEST: The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed CASENO: 06-00635.a1 DATE: 01/17/2008 DATE: January 17, 2008 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-00635

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 30, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) The Judge found in favor of Applicant as to SOR paragraphs 1.h, l.j, l.l, 1.n, and 1.o, and Guideline E. Those favorable findings are not at issue on appeal. In his brief, Applicant acknowledges that there are four open accounts that are not enrolled in his debt program. He states that those accounts will be paid when the creditors can be located and contacted. and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record. On August 29, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1 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 an explanatory statement and two documentary exhibits, which update Applicant’s financial situation and indicate that six of Applicant’s debts are currently being paid through a debt management agent. Applicant also summarizes the favorable evidence presented below. 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. It does not review cases de novo. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. 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