CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-02168.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-02168.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-02168.a1

Nov 25, 2011· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to insufficient evidence regarding his financial situation. Specifically, the applicant failed to provide necessary documentation related to a bankruptcy. This lack of evidence prevented the adjudicator from making a favorable determination regarding his financial stability.

The applicant appealed the denial, but the Appeal Board affirmed the original decision. The Board noted that the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the initial adjudication process. Furthermore, the Board was unable to consider any new evidence presented by the applicant during the appeal, adhering strictly to the Directive's mandate that new evidence cannot be introduced at this stage.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, with the decision resting on the applicant's failure to provide adequate financial documentation at the initial stage and the procedural limitations on introducing new evidence during the appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“By explicit mandate, the Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 24, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 26, 2011
Decision dateNov 25, 2011

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· 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 in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — 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 assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board is not permitted to consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
James E. Moody

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: 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

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 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