CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-08244.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-08244.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-08244.a1

Apr 21, 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 initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition F1.

The applicant appealed the denial; however, the appeal was unsuccessful. The denial was upheld because the applicant did not allege any harmful error on the part of the judge in the initial decision.

Furthermore, new evidence submitted by the applicant during the appeal process was not considered, as it did not address the requirement of demonstrating harmful error. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 21, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 3, 2011
Decision dateApr 21, 2011

Cite For

Limitations on the Appeal Board's Authority Regarding New Evidence
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error in Appeals
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· 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 by the Judge and that new evidence submitted could not be considered. The adverse decision was upheld.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any harmful error by 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 submitted new evidence that could not be considered 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: Applicant submitted new evidence on appeal, which the Board cannot consider. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 09-08244.a1 DATE: 04/21/2011 DATE: April 21, 2011 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-08244

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 21, 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 a hearing. On February 3, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson 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 new evidence, in the form of a statement by the Applicant and supporting documentation, which indicates that subsequent to the close of the record in this case: 1) his application for loan modification was accepted and he expects to sign documentation to that effect any day, 2) he has listed one of his rental properties for sale and will eventually use the expected proceeds to pay of all existing debts, and 3) all of his debts continue to be handled and/or paid off by a law firm he hired to work with his creditors. 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. 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: 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