A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 07-12683.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 29, 2008 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, represented by counsel, sought a security clearance but was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's decision and submitted new evidence that was not considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision.
- The appeal board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2008-01-22
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-04-25
- Decision date
- 2008-07-29
Cite for
- Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
- Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error
- Affirmation of Denial Based on 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 regarding the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and submitted new evidence that was not permissible for consideration. 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: The Board does not consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-12683.a1 DATE: 07/29/2008 DATE: July 29, 2008 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-12683
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Charles A. Wade, Esq. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On January 22, 2008, 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 April 25, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro 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. Instead, Applicant submits copies of items already in the record, as well as new evidence in the form a statement about the types of clearances he has held. He also notes that he has not had to deal with classified information during the last seventeen months and that “[a] clearance is simply an across the board contract requirement.” The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. It’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. The Board 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: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board