CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-15592.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-15592.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-15592.a1

Jan 29, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The initial denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was denied. The Appeal Board noted that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Furthermore, the Board was unable to consider new evidence presented by the applicant regarding the resolution of her debts, as new evidence cannot be introduced at the appeal stage.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, upholding the original decision based on the financial considerations outlined in Guideline F.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 12, 2008
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldNov 25, 2008Decision made by Administrative Judge.
Decision dateJan 29, 2009Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error
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 was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not allege any harmful error in her appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not make an allegation of harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, which limited the Board's authority to review the case.

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: Applicant did not make an allegation of harmful error by the Judge. Therefore, the Board has no authority under the Directive to review Applicant’s case. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-15592.a1 DATE: 01/29/2009 DATE: January 29, 2009 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-15592

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. On May 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) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record. On November 25, 2008, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record and did not respond to the government’s file of relevant material (FORM). In her brief, she states that she misplaced the FORM package and then forgot about it. Applicant’s Brief at 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 and documentary exhibits, which indicate that she has paid or otherwise resolved the debts listed in the SOR. 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: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board