CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-02819.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-02819.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-02819.a1

Feb 4, 2013· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The initial denial was based on disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the denial was affirmed. The Appeal Board noted that the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Additionally, the applicant presented new evidence regarding bankruptcy during the appeal process, which the Board was unable to consider as new evidence cannot be introduced at the appellate stage.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, as the applicant failed to demonstrate harmful error in the initial ruling and the new evidence presented on appeal could not be factored into the decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

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 issuedJul 3, 2012
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 6, 2012Decision made by Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul.
Decision dateFeb 4, 2013Appeal 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to concerns under Guideline F and Guideline E. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMartin H. Mogul — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal, and the appeal was based solely on the record.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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 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

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 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