A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-11222.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 9, 2009 · Administrative Judge Jeffrey D. Billett · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The appeal was based on new evidence of financial issues, including a pending Chapter 7 bankruptcy, but the Board could not consider this evidence as it did not allege harmful error by the judge. The appeal was denied, affirming the initial decision due to the lack of relevant claims regarding the judge's ruling.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge.
- The Board cannot consider new evidence submitted on appeal.
- The adverse impact of an unfavorable decision is not relevant to security clearance eligibility.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2009-02-03
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested decision on written record.
- Hearing held
- 2009-06-25 Decision issued by Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross.
- Decision date
- 2009-09-09 Appeal 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
The appeal was regarding the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge and instead submitted new evidence related to his financial situation. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.
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 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
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