A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 05-04843
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 24, 2007 · Administrative Judge Jeffrey D. Billett · Appeal
Appeal at a glance
The appeal was from a decision denying the Applicant a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm the Administrative Judge's decision.
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
Appeal Board Summary Disposition
!-- 05-04843</P>
--> <!-- /CASE --> <!-- DATE --> <!-- 01/24/2007</P>
--> <!-- /DATE -->
<P>DATE: January 24, 2007</P>
<P><HR>
</P>
In Re:
<P>---------</P>
<P>SSN: -------</P>
<P>Applicant for Security Clearance</P>
<P><HR>
</P>
ISCR Case No. 05-04843
</MULTICOL>
<P STYLE="text-align: CENTER"><STRONG>APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION</STRONG></P>
<P STYLE="text-align: CENTER"><STRONG><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: underline">APPEARANCES</ SPAN></STRONG></P>
<P STYLE="text-align: CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG>FOR GOVERNMENT</STRONG></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="text-align: CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt">James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel</SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="text-align: CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG>FOR APPLICANT</STRONG></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="text-align: CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><EM>Pro Se</EM></STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><EM></EM></SPAN></P>
<P>The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 15, 2005, 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 June 26, 2006, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Barry M. Sax denied Applicant's request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed the Judge's unfavorable
clearance decision.</P>
<P>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 from the Applicant, which indicates that by the
time the decision was issued Applicant had paid off some of the debts listed in the SOR and was continuing to try to resolve her financial problems. The Board cannot consider this new evidence
on appeal. <EM>See</EM> Directive ¶ E3.1.29.</P>
<P>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. It does not review cases <EM>de novo</EM>. Applicant has not
made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Administrative Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.</P>
<P><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: underline">Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett</SPAN></P>
<P>Jeffrey D. Billett</P>
<P>Adm
Appearances
01/24/2007</P>
--> <!-- /DATE -->
<P>DATE: January 24, 2007</P>
<P><HR>
</P>
In Re:
<P>---------</P>
<P>SSN: -------</P>
<P>Applicant for Security Clearance</P>
<P><HR>
</P>
ISCR Case No. 05-04843
</MULTICOL>
<P STYLE="text-align: CENTER"><STRONG>APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION</S