CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-06804.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-06804.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-06804.a1

Aug 30, 2012· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance based on concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Administrative Judge initially denied the clearance, citing these guidelines.

The applicant appealed this decision; however, the appeal was subsequently denied. The Board's review is limited to cases where an applicant alleges harmful error by the Administrative Judge, and the applicant in this case did not assert any such error.

Furthermore, the Board is unable to consider new evidence during the appeal process. Consequently, with no harmful error alleged and no new evidence permissible, the Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

JraisedCriminal Conduct
EraisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 3, 2012
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 26, 2012Applicant requested decision on written record.
Decision dateAug 30, 2012

Cite For

Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error
Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Assertion

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 regarding the denial of a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline J and Guideline E. The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowElizabeth M. Matchinski — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline JGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as the applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
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 J; Guideline E DIGEST: The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. The Board’s authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 11-06804.a1 DATE: 08/30/2012 DATE: August 30, 2012 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-06804

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 February 3, 2012, 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 E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record. On June 26, 2012, after the close of the record, Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski 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 makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. He makes a number of comments concerning the written record and offers them as an explanation for his conduct. He also states that in the course of his employment he does not come into direct contact with classified information. Some of these representations are not contained in the record below.

The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, the Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. The Board does not review cases de novo. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.

Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, 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