CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-06672.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-06672.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-06672.a1

Mar 18, 2011· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide evidence of actual payments on his debts, offering only promises to pay. This directly implicated Disqualifying Condition F.1.

During the appeal process, the applicant presented new evidence concerning debt repayment plans. However, the Board was unable to consider this new information because the appeal did not assert any harmful error by the Judge in the initial decision. The Board's review was therefore limited to the existing record.

Consequently, the Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance, as the original decision was found to be consistent with the evidence presented at the time.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 17, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 27, 2011decided on the written record
Decision dateMar 18, 2011

Cite For

Limitations on the Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence
Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Evidence of Debt Repayment
Importance of Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals

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 regarding the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision and instead submitted new evidence, which the Board could not consider. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJennifer I. Goldstein — 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 on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error and presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Jean E. Smallin
James E. Moody
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 consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-06672.a1 DATE: 03/18/2011 DATE: March 18, 2011 In Re: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-06672

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 May 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 January 27, 2011, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein 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, based upon the record that was before her. Rather, it contains new evidence, in the form of documents indicating that scheduled payments on Applicant’s outstanding debts are being made in accordance with debt repayment plans. In her decision, the Judge had noted that “[w]hile [Applicant] submitted evidence of promises to pay on the debts . . . he did not submit evidence of any actual payments.” Decision at 6. 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 based upon the record that was before her. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board