A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-08679.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 2, 2009 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to unresolved financial issues. The appeal was denied as it did not assert harmful error and included new evidence not considered by the Board.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the appeal.
- The appeal included new evidence that the Board could not consider.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2009-01-26
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2009-06-26 Decision made by Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone.
- Decision date
- 2009-10-02 Board 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
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.
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: 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
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