CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-05372.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-05372.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-05372.a1

Nov 26, 2008· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The initial decision cited disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 19, while also considering mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20.

The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's original decision. The Board noted that the applicant did not assert any such error in her appeal.

Furthermore, the Appeal Board determined that new evidence presented by the applicant regarding a tax debt could not be considered during the appeal process. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe Judge found in favor of the applicant on several favorable findings, but these were not sufficient to mitigate the overall financial concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 19, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 22, 2008
Decision dateNov 26, 2008

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Authority Regarding New Evidence
Requirements for Alleging 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· 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 assert any harmful error in her appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark W. Harvey — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
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 as the applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board's authority is limited to reviewing such claims.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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: Appeal Board’s authority is limited. The Board does not have authority to grant interim clearances. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-05372.a1 DATE: 11/26/2008 DATE: November 26, 2008 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-05372

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 June 19, 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 The Judge found in favor of Applicant as to SOR paragraphs 1(c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (i) Those favorable findings are not at issue on appeal. Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On September 22, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mark W. Harvey 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. Rather, it contains new evidence which indicates that the IRS’s Taxpayer Advocate Service is attempting to resolved Applicant’s outstanding tax debt. The Board cannot consider this 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. Nor does it have authority to grant an interim clearance so that Applicant can resolve her financial problems. See. e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-26686 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Mar. 21, 2008). 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: Jeffrey D. Billettt Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board