CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-08430.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-08430.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-08430.a1

Apr 21, 2011· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to issues raised under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 19. The initial decision to deny the clearance was affirmed on appeal.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to allege harmful error in the judge's initial decision. Additionally, the appeal could not consider new evidence submitted by the applicant, as the Board is precluded from reviewing such material at that stage.

Consequently, the adverse decision was upheld, and the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial 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 19, 2010
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldFeb 2, 2011Decision issued by Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider.
Decision dateApr 21, 2011Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Allegation
Limitations on New Evidence Submission During Appeal
Authority of the Appeal Board in Reviewing Cases

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 from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and submitted new evidence that the Board could not consider. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert J. Tuider — 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 allege any harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative 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 made no allegation of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 09-08430.a1 DATE: 04/21/2011 DATE: April 21, 2011 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-08430

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 19, 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 2, 2011, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.

FOOTNOTES

1 Applicant did not file a response to the government’s File of Relevant Material. 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 explaining the status of her various debts, along with a credit report, summary of judicial records, and character reference letter, all dated subsequent to the issuance of the decision in this case.1 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