CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-00343.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-00343.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-00343.a1

Mar 14, 2007· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Appeal Board affirmed this denial.

The Board noted that the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in his appeal. Additionally, the applicant submitted new evidence during the appeal process, which the Board was unable to consider as part of its review.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied, with the Appeal Board upholding the initial decision based on the record presented.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

JraisedCriminal Conduct

Mitigating

FappliedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 25, 2005
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 24, 2006decided on the written record
Decision dateMar 14, 2007

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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on 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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowHenry Lazzaro — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge. The appeal contained new evidence that could not be considered on review.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
William S. Fields

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 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

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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