CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-02263.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-02263.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02263.a1

deniedNov 12, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a trustworthiness designation due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Administrative Judge's decision cited disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 20, AG ¶ 15, and AG ¶ 30.

The applicant appealed the denial. However, the Appeal Board upheld the original decision. The Board noted that the applicant's brief did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's findings.

Furthermore, the Appeal Board was unable to consider any new evidence presented by the applicant, as its procedures prohibit the introduction of evidence not already part of the official record. Consequently, the denial of the trustworthiness designation was sustained.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's brief did not raise any allegations of harmful error against the Administrative Judge.
The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence not contained in the record.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20appliedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15appliedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 30appliedCriminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 23, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 23, 2019
Decision dateNov 12, 2019

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial and Personal Conduct Issues
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Prohibition Against Considering New Evidence on Appeal

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

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; Guideline E; Guideline J DIGEST: Applicant’s brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents and assertions that are not contained in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also request that we reconsider his unfavorable decision. The Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02263.a1 DATE: 11/12/2019

DATE: November 12, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ---------- ) ADP Case No. 18-02263 ) ) Applicant for Public Trust Position ) )

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 trustworthiness designation. On November 23, 2018, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On August 23, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents and assertions that are not contained in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also request that we reconsider his unfavorable decision. 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 trustworthiness designation is affirmed.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael 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