DATE: July 3, 2006
-------------
SSN: ----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On May 3, 2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis for that decision--security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended(Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On February 13, 2006, after the hearing, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant's request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of error on the part of the Administrative Judge. It only contains new evidence in the form of statements about a recent agreement Applicant reached with the Internal Revenue Service to pay $200 a month on his outstanding tax debt and the current amount of that debt. (1)
The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
The Appeal Board's authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Administrative Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Administrative Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra'anan
Michael Y. Ra'anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman (Acting), Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
1. Applicant also argues that an unfavorable decision will adversely impact his employment situation. The possibility that an unfavorable security clearance decision could have adverse consequences for an applicant's job situation is not relevant or material to an evaluation of the security significance of that applicant's conduct. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-11570 at 8 (App. Bd. May 19, 2004).