CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-04843.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-04843.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-04843.a1

Mar 30, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). Specific disqualifying conditions were raised under AG ¶ 20, AG ¶ 15, and AG ¶ 31.

The denial was affirmed on appeal. The Board could not consider new evidence introduced by the applicant during the appeal process, as it was not part of the original record.

Furthermore, the applicant did not assert any harmful error committed by the Administrative Judge in the initial decision. Consequently, the Board upheld the Administrative Judge's decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 31raisedCriminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 16, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 28, 2009
Decision dateMar 30, 2009

Cite For

Limitations on Introducing New Evidence During Appeal
Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Application of Multiple Guidelines in 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on security concerns under multiple guidelines. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the Applicant did not assert any harmful error and presented new evidence that was not permissible for consideration on appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline EGuideline 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 Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error and presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
James E. Moody

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 F; Guideline E; Guideline J DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief relies on new evidence. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-04843.a1 DATE: 03/30/2009 DATE: March 30, 2009 In Re: ---- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-04843

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 July 16, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security 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 January 28, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. 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 an statement in which Applicant asserts that he has received a substantial inheritance after the close of the record which he anticipates will permit him to resolve his financial problems. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board