A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-02819.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 4, 2013 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial was affirmed on appeal as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge and presented new evidence regarding bankruptcy, which was not considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the Judge.
- The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“Our authority to review cases is limited to those in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error by the Judge.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2012-07-03
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2012-12-06 Decision made by Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul.
- Decision date
- 2013-02-04 Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal
- Security Concerns Under Guideline E and F
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 involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied by the Administrative Judge based on security concerns under Guideline F and Guideline E. The applicant appealed but did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, leading the Appeal Board to affirm the denial of the security clearance.
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 F; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant did not allege harmful error by the Judge. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 10-02819.a1 DATE: 02/04/2013 DATE: February 4, 2013 In Re: ----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-02819
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 3, 2012, DOHA 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 decision on the written record. On December 6, 2012, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error by the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence concerning Applicant’s bankruptcy filing. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Our authority to review cases is limited to those in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error by the Judge. Accordingly, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board