CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-11222.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-11222.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-11222.a1

Sep 9, 2009· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The applicant appealed the initial decision, submitting new evidence of financial issues, including a pending Chapter 7 bankruptcy. However, the Board could not consider this new evidence because it was submitted on appeal and did not allege harmful error by the judge in the initial ruling. The Board also noted that the adverse impact of an unfavorable decision is not relevant to security clearance eligibility.

Consequently, the appeal was denied, affirming the initial decision to deny the security clearance. The denial was due to the applicant's failure to claim harmful error by the judge and the Board's inability to consider new evidence presented at the appellate stage.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The adverse impact an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not deemed a relevant or material consideration in evaluating his security eligibility.”
— ISCR Case No. 03-19002 at 4 (App. Bd. May 5, 2005)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 3, 2009
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldJun 25, 2009Decision issued by Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross.
Decision dateSep 9, 2009Appeal affirmed by the Board.

Cite For

Limitations on the Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence on Appeal
Relevance of Adverse Impacts in Security Clearance Evaluations
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 his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not allege any harmful error and that new evidence submitted could not be considered. The adverse decision was upheld.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowWilford H. Ross — 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 allege that the Judge committed harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error and submitted new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
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: Applicant did not allege that the Judge committed harmful error. Rather, he submitted new evidence, which the Board cannot consider. Furthermore, the adverse impact of an unfavorable decision is not relevant to evaluating his security clearance eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-11222.a1 DATE: 09/09/2009 DATE: September 9, 2009 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-11222

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 February 3, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On June 25, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross 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 Applicant has now sought the services of an attorney and is in the process of filing for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Applicant asks that the Board give him until the end of August to clear up his financial problems—thus allowing him to keep his job and provide for his family. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. It does not review cases de novo. Nor does it have authority to grant a clearance on a conditional or probationary basis. See ISCR Case No. 04-04302 at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 30, 2005); ISCR Case No. 02- 23805 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2005). Finally, the adverse impact an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not deemed a relevant or material consideration in evaluating his security eligibility. See ISCR Case No. 03-21012 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2005); ISCR Case No. 03-19002 at 4 (App. Bd. May 5, 2005). 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, 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