A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 09-04608.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 19, 2010 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to unresolved financial issues. The appeal was based on new evidence not considered by the Administrative Judge, which was not permitted under the rules, leading to the affirmation of the denial.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the appeal.
- The Board could not consider new evidence submitted after the Judge's decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2009-11-30
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2010-04-29 Decision made by Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman.
- Decision date
- 2010-07-19 Appeal affirmed by the Board.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
- Guidance 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
The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not raise any issue of harmful error and presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.
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 did not raise an issue of harmful error. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-04608.a1 DATE: 07/19/2010 DATE: July 19, 2010 In Re: ----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-04608
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 November 30, 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 decision on the written record. On April 29, 2010, after considering the record, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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, i.e., documents indicating that Applicant has hired a tax representation firm and made two debt payments. All three documents are dated after the Judge’s decision. 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board