Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

ISCR Case No. 07-11103.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Nov 13, 2008 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial was affirmed on appeal as the applicant did not assert harmful error and presented new evidence that was not considered by the Board.

Why the applicant was denied

  • The applicant did not assert harmful error by the Judge in her appeal.
  • The new evidence presented by the applicant was not considered by the Board as it was outside the scope of the appeal.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

  • AG ¶ 20 Criminal Conductraised
  • AG ¶ 19 Personal Conductraised
  • AG ¶ 18 Financial Considerationsraised

Key rule quoted

“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural posture

SOR issued
2008-02-12
Answer filed
Hearing held
2008-08-20 Applicant requested decision on written record.
Decision date
2008-11-13

Cite for

  • Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
  • Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
  • Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals

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 her request for a security clearance based on security concerns under multiple guidelines. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in her appeal.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

Synopsis

KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: The board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-11103.a1 DATE: 11/13/2008 DATE: November 13, 2008 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-11103

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 February 12, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense The Judge found in favor of Applicant as to SOR paragraph 1(q). That favorable finding is not at issue on appeal. Applicant’s appeal brief does not address the Guideline E and J allegations. Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record. On August 20, 2008, 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, which indicates that she is keeping current on her bills and trying to budget in a way that would allow her to start paying on her back debts.2 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, 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