A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-02168.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Nov 25, 2011 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to insufficient evidence regarding his financial situation, including bankruptcy documentation. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not assert harmful error and that new evidence could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial stability, including necessary bankruptcy documentation.
- The Appeal Board could not consider new evidence on appeal, as per the explicit mandate of the Directive.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“By explicit mandate, the Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2011-03-24
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2011-08-26
- Decision date
- 2011-11-25
Cite for
- Limitations on the Consideration of New Evidence in Appeals
- Requirements for Demonstrating Financial Stability Under Guideline F
- The Necessity of Asserting Harmful Error for Successful 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
The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial, stating it could not 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: By explicit mandate, the Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-02168.a1 DATE: 11/25/2011 DATE: November 25, 2011 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-02168
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 March 24, 2011, 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 August 26, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley 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 does assert that an attorney he had retained failed to forward documentation pertinent to his security clearance adjudication to the Judge for his consideration. The Judge had agreed to leave the record open for a period of time after the hearing for the submission of additional documents. A single document entitled, “Notice of Bankruptcy Case Filing” with a cover letter from Applicant’s security clearance attorney was submitted and accepted into evidence. The Judge alluded to this evidence in his decision, but also noted the lack of bankruptcy filing schedules, the lack of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, and the lack of evidence of tax filings. The record supports the Judge’s characterization of the evidence. On appeal, Applicant specifically requests the Board to allow him to submit new evidence for consideration. Applicant states that it is his understanding that his security clearance attorney failed to forward to the Judge documents his bankruptcy attorney had faxed to the security clearance attorney. By explicit mandate, the Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, 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. 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board