CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-01960.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-01960.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-01960.a1

Aug 31, 2010· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The appeal was denied because the applicant did not assert harmful error by the Administrative Judge, and new evidence submitted on appeal could not be considered. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision to deny the clearance.

The Administrative Judge had raised Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20, which pertains to financial considerations. The applicant's failure to specifically assert that the Judge made a harmful error in applying this condition, combined with the submission of new evidence that was outside the scope of the appeal review, led to the denial.

Ultimately, the Board upheld the original decision to deny the security clearance, concluding that the applicant had not met the burden for overturning the Administrative Judge's determination.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 1, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 22, 2010
Decision dateAug 31, 2010

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMichael H. Leonard — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
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 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

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 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