CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-03253.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-03253.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-03253.a1

Sep 15, 2010· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was specifically linked to Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15.

The applicant appealed the decision, submitting new evidence related to his financial management and personal character. However, the Board did not consider this new evidence during the appeal process.

Ultimately, the Board upheld the initial denial of the security clearance. The primary reason cited for upholding the denial was the applicant's failure to assert harmful error during the appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 8, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 28, 2010decided on written record
Decision dateSep 15, 2010

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

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 allege any harmful error and submitted new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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; 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

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 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