CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-00955a.red — CASE

ISCR Case 09-00955a.reddenied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-00955a.red

Feb 10, 2011· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on the applicant's failure to assert harmful error by the Administrative Judge and the impermissible introduction of new evidence during the appeal process.

The Administrative Judge initially denied the clearance, citing Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20. On appeal, the applicant did not argue that the Judge made a harmful error in the initial decision. Furthermore, the Appeal Board could not consider the new evidence the applicant presented, as it was not permissible for review at that stage.

Consequently, the Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 9, 2010
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldNov 30, 2010Administrative Judge denied the request for a security clearance.
Decision dateFeb 10, 2011Appeal Board affirmed the decision.

Cite For

Failure to Assert Harmful Error as a Basis for Appeal
Limitations on New Evidence in Security Clearance Appeals
Affirmation of Denial Based on 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and instead submitted new evidence, which the Board could not consider. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — 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 raise an issue of harmful error.

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
Jean E. Smallin
William S. Fields

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 raise an issue of harmful error. His new evidence cannot be considered upon appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 09-00955a.red DATE: 02/10/2011 DATE: February 10, 2011 In Re: --------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-00955

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 June 9, 2010, 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 November 30, 2010, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In this case, Applicant did not file a response to the Government’s file of relevant material. His appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence, in the form of documents relating to Applicant’s participation in a debt repayment plan in 2008, his receipt of unemployment compensation, his negotiation of a payment plan for one of his debts in January 2011, and an unexplained IRS notice for the year 2007. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board