CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-05524.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-05524.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-05524.a1

Apr 27, 2007· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing themselves, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial was based on significant financial issues and criminal conduct, which were identified as disqualifying conditions.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal board affirmed the denial. The board noted that new evidence regarding the applicant's medical condition could not be considered during the appeal because it had not been presented at the initial hearing and did not allege harmful error in the original decision.

Ultimately, the administrative judges signed off on the denial, concluding that the applicant's financial and criminal history presented unacceptable security risks.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 27, 2006Hearing held on this date.
Decision dateApr 27, 2007Appeal board affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial and Criminal Conduct
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 involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial and criminal conduct concerns. The applicant, representing themselves, did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial, stating it could not consider new evidence submitted on appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowErin C. Hogan — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not allege any harmful error and the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealNo de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Jean E. Smallin
William S. Fields
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 F; Guideline J DIGEST: The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-05524.a1 DATE: 04/27/2007 DATE: April 27, 2007 In Re: ---------- SSN: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-05524

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 due to security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On September 27, 2006, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant submitted a timely appeal pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.

Applicant requests that the Board consider evidence not admitted at the hearing, consisting of statements by physicians describing Applicant’s medical condition. Medical bills underlie some of the allegations in the Statement of Reasons. Applicant’s appeal submission does not make an allegation of harmful error. The Board may not consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-03143 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 20, 2006). Moreover, the Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.

ORDER

The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board