A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-00983.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 17, 2011 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert harmful error and the Board could not consider new evidence regarding financial improvements. The decision of the Administrative Judge was affirmed.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error on the part of the Judge.
- The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2010-10-02
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2011-02-28
- Decision date
- 2011-05-17
Cite for
- Limitations on the Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence on Appeal
- Requirements for Asserting 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
The appeal was from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial as it cannot consider new evidence on 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: Applicant made no assertion of harmful error. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 10-00983.a1 DATE: 05/17/2011 DATE: May 17, 2011 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-00983
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 October 2, 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 28, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran 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 makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Applicant made factual assertions implying improvements in her finances which she asserts support a granting of her security clearance. However, the Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also requests additional time to make further progress. The Board does not have such authority. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-24458 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 14, 2008). 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. The Board does not review cases de novo. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board