CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-08679.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-08679.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-08679.a1

Oct 2, 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; however, the appeal was subsequently denied. This denial was based on two primary reasons: the applicant did not assert harmful error in her appeal, and the appeal itself included new evidence that the Board was unable to consider during its review.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 26, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 26, 2009Decision made by Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone.
Decision dateOct 2, 2009Board affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error
Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations

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 applicant's appeal did not assert any specific harmful error, and the Board affirmed the denial as it could not consider new evidence presented in the appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not assert any specific harmful error by 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 presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

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 cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-08679.a1 DATE: 10/02/2009 DATE: October 2, 2009 In Re: -------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-08679

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 January 26, 2009, 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 26, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone 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 by the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence not contained in the record concerning her marital separation, her husband’s employment difficulties, and her trustworthiness. 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