CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00044.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-00044.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00044.a1

May 17, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Appeal Board affirmed this denial.

The original decision cited disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15. The applicant did not allege any error in the initial decision during the appeal process.

Furthermore, the applicant waived the opportunity to present additional evidence by failing to respond to the Department Counsel's File of Relevant Material. Based on these factors, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider such consequences.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 22, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateMay 17, 2019

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Error Allegations in Appeal
Waiver of Opportunity to Present Additional Evidence
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant appealed but did not raise any specific allegations of error. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's brief raises no allegations of error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to the errors claimed by the appealing party, and since no such errors were raised, the decision stands.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
Charles C. Hale

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 E; Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant’s brief discusses the impact that an unfavorable decision will have on him. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider such consequences. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-00044.a1 DATE: 05/17/2019 DATE: May 17, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ---------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-00044 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On January 22, 2018, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) 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 decision on the written record. On March 11, 2019, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegations of error on the part of the Judge. In his brief, Applicant states that the Judge’s decision was based on an incomplete record because he failed to submit matters.1 His brief contains documents that are not in the record. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant’s brief also discusses the impact that an unfavorable decision will have on him. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider such consequences. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-13180 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 21, 2013). Additionally, Applicant requests that we delay issuing our decision until after his current contract ends. An applicant is not entitled to a delayed or deferred adjudication of his or her request for a clearance. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00151 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 12, 2014).

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. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 1 Applicant chose to have his case adjudicated on the written record. By not responding to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) and by not offering documents in support of his case, he waived his opportunity to present favorable updated information to the Judge, and he cannot now complain that his case was decided by the Judge based on an incomplete record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 01-03112 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 20, 2002).