A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 05-00343.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 14, 2007 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge and submitted new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal did not assert harmful error by the Judge.
- The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- J Criminal Conductraised
Mitigating
- F Financial Considerationsapplied
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2005-10-25
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2006-08-24 decided on the written record
- Decision date
- 2007-03-14
Cite for
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence
- Affirmation of Favorable Findings Not Contested on Appeal
- Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals
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
The appeal was regarding the denial of a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline J and Guideline F. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The appeal included new evidence that was not permissible for consideration.
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
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline J; Guideline F DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. CASENO: 05-00343.a1 DATE: 03/14/2007 DATE: March 14, 2007 In Re: ------- SSN: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 05-00343
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On October 25, 2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record. On August 24, 2006, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and The Judge found in favor of Applicant under Guideline F. That favorable finding is not at issue on appeal. E3.1.30.1 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 federal and state tax records, a release of lien, a receipt for the payment of a debt, and documentation relating to Applicant’s retirement status. 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 Judge committed harmful error. It does not review cases de novo. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board