CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-00983.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-00983.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-00983.a1

May 17, 2011· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from the presence of Disqualifying Condition F.1, indicating financial issues that raised security concerns.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was ultimately denied. A key reason for the denial was the applicant's failure to assert any harmful error on the part of the Administrative Judge who initially reviewed her case. Additionally, the Board was unable to consider new evidence presented by the applicant regarding improvements to her financial situation, as appellate rules prohibit the introduction of new evidence at that stage.

Consequently, the Administrative Judge's original decision to deny the security clearance was affirmed, and the applicant's appeal was unsuccessful.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 2, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 28, 2011
Decision dateMay 17, 2011

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not assert any harmful error, and the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Michael D. Hipple
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 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

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 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