A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-05524.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 27, 2007 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The appeal board affirmed the denial, stating that new evidence regarding the applicant's medical condition could not be considered on appeal as it did not allege harmful error. The decision was signed by multiple administrative judges.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's financial issues and criminal conduct were significant concerns under the applicable guidelines.
- The appeal board could not consider new evidence that was not presented at the hearing.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 30 Criminal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2006-09-27 Hearing held on this date.
- Decision date
- 2007-04-27 Appeal 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
The appeal was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied their request for a security clearance based on financial and criminal conduct concerns. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error and that new evidence could not be considered on appeal.
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; 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
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