A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 09-01960.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 31, 2010 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert harmful error and submitted new evidence that could not be considered. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error on the part of the Judge.
- New evidence submitted by the applicant could not be considered on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2009-10-01
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2010-06-22
- Decision date
- 2010-08-31
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations on the Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence on Appeal
- Requirement for Asserting Harmful Error for Successful Appeal
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 from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and submitted new evidence that the Board could not consider. 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 made no assertion of harmful error. Rather, he submitted new evidence, which the Board cannot consider. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 09-01960.a1 DATE: 08/31/2010 DATE: August 31, 2010 In Re: ----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-01960
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 October 1, 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 hearing. On June 22, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Applicant does offer additional written materials which he asserts support a reversal of the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision. For example, he supplies information about a bankruptcy petition filed after the close of the record. However, the Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. The Board does not review a case 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 Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board