A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-07592.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 7, 2009 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to unresolved financial issues. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge, and new evidence regarding financial resolution efforts was not considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege any harmful error by the judge.
- New evidence regarding financial issues was not considered on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ F.3 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2008-12-16
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2009-06-04 Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied the request.
- Decision date
- 2009-08-07 Appeal Board affirmed the denial.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Allegations
- Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
- Criteria for 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 from a 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. The Board affirmed the denial as the applicant's appeal did not meet the necessary criteria for review.
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: Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-07592.a1 DATE: 08/07/2009 DATE: August 7, 2009 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-07592
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 December 16, 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 decision on the written record. On June 4, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no specific assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence, principally information about his efforts to resolve his financial problems, which was not contained in the record. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. The Board does not review cases de novo. 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