A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 09-06545.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 17, 2011 · Administrative Judge Jeffrey D. Billett · 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 Board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant did not assert harmful error and that the adverse impact on employment was not relevant to security eligibility.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision.
- The adverse impact of the decision on employment was deemed irrelevant to security eligibility.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The adverse impact an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not relevant in evaluating his security eligibility.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2010-11-17
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested decision on written record.
- Hearing held
- 2010-02-28 Administrative Judge denied request for security clearance.
- Decision date
- 2011-05-17 Board affirmed denial.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Irrelevance of Employment Impact in Security Clearance Evaluations
- Limitations on the Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence on 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 filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error in his 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: The Board cannot receive or consider new evidence on appeal. The adverse impact an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not relevant in evaluating his security eligibility. Applicant has not made an assertion of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 09-06545.a1 DATE: 05/17/2011 DATE: May 17, 2011 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-06545
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 17, 2010, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On February 28, 2010, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the 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 a general assertion by the Applicant that he has made some progress in cleaning up his debt, and a request that he be allowed to provide additional evidence in support of his appeal. He also states that loss of his clearance will have an adverse impact on his employment situation. The Board cannot receive or consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Moreover, the adverse impact an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not deemed a relevant or material consideration in evaluating his security eligibility. See ISCR Case No. 06- 24458 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan.14, 2008). The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Its authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board