CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00235.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-00235.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00235.a1

Jul 30, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Specifically, Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 16 and AG ¶ 15 were raised during the initial review.

The applicant appealed the denial; however, the appeal was unsuccessful. The Appeal Board noted that the applicant did not allege any harmful error on the part of the judge who made the initial determination. Furthermore, the applicant introduced new assertions during the appeal process that had not been presented or considered previously.

The Appeal Board is prohibited from reviewing new evidence or assertions not part of the original record. Consequently, the security clearance was denied, and the appeal was dismissed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board does not have authority to consider such matters.”
— ISCR Case No. 14-00508 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jan. 23, 2015)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 10, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 25, 2019
Decision dateJul 30, 2019

Cite For

Limitations on the Appeal Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error in Appeals
Impact of Financial Considerations on Security Clearance Decisions

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 was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline E and Guideline F. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant raised no allegations of harmful error in her appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board is prohibited from considering new evidence not presented to the Judge.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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 appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. It does contain some assertions that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-00235.a1 DATE: 07/30/2019 DATE: July 30, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ---------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-00235 ) ) 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 April 10, 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 hearing. On April 25, 2019, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., 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 allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. It does contain some assertions that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant indicates that denial of her security clearance will have a negative effect on her and that she requires no access to classified information to perform her job. The Appeal Board does not have authority to consider such matters. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00508 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jan. 23, 2015). Applicant repeats claims of having been a victim of identity theft. However, the Judge made findings about her claims. The Board does not review cases de novo. 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.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board