CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-06545.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-06545.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-06545.a1

May 17, 2011· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Board affirmed this denial.

The Board noted that the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's initial decision. Furthermore, the Board clarified that the adverse impact of the denial on the applicant's employment was not a relevant factor in determining security eligibility.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20, indicating that the applicant's financial circumstances presented an unacceptable security risk.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The adverse impact an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not relevant in evaluating his security eligibility.”
— ISCR Case No. 06-24458 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan.14, 2008)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 17, 2010
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldFeb 28, 2010Administrative Judge denied request for security clearance.
Decision dateMay 17, 2011Board 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Robinson Gales — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
Jean E. Smallin
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 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

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 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