A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 09-03253.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 15, 2010 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal was based on new evidence regarding financial management and personal character, but the Board upheld the denial as the applicant did not assert harmful error.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error on appeal.
- The new evidence submitted was not considered by the Board.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2009-10-08
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2010-06-28 decided on written record
- Decision date
- 2010-09-15
Cite for
- Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
- Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error
- Impact of Financial Obligations on Security Clearance Decisions
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 and personal conduct. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. 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; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant submitted new evidence on appeal, which the Board cannot consider. Applicant made no assertion of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 09-03253.a1 DATE: 09/15/2010 DATE: September 15, 2010 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-03253
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 8, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record. On June 28, 2010, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to 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, in the form a statement from the Applicant, which indicates that (1) Applicant has contracted with a debt management company and is making payments on his financial obligations, and (2) he is hardworking, respected by his peers, and has received top-rated performance reviews. 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. It does not review cases de novo. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board