CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-12683.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-12683.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-12683.a1

Jul 29, 2008· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, represented by counsel, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal board affirmed this denial.

The denial was based on the applicant's financial history, specifically citing Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's initial decision to deny the clearance.

Furthermore, the appeal board noted that it could not consider new evidence submitted by the applicant during the appeal process, as such evidence is not permissible at that stage. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 22, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 25, 2007
Decision dateJul 29, 2008

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance as the applicant's appeal did not meet the necessary criteria for review.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowHenry Lazzaro — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error and submitted new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Michael D. Hipple
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 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

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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