Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

ISCR Case No. 14-02633.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Jun 9, 2016 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant's claims of debt resolution were not considered as they were not presented during the initial hearing, and he did not demonstrate harmful error by the Judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Why the applicant was denied

  • The applicant did not allege harmful error by the Judge.
  • The applicant's claims regarding debt resolution were not presented during the initial hearing.
  • The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

  • AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
  • AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised

Key rule quoted

“Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party alleges harmful error.”

Procedural posture

SOR issued
2015-05-21
Answer filed
Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held
2016-03-31 Decision made by Administrative Judge Shari Dam.
Decision date
2016-06-09 Appeal affirmed by the Board.

Cite for

  • Limitations on the Appeal Board's Jurisdiction Regarding Harmful Error Allegations
  • The Inability to Consider New Evidence on Appeal
  • The Importance of Presenting All Relevant Evidence During the Initial Hearing

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 was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial and personal conduct concerns. The Board affirmed the decision, noting that the applicant did not raise any issue of harmful error in his appeal.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The 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 raise an issue of harmful error by the Judge. Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party alleges harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-02633.a1 DATE: 06/09/2016 DATE: June 9, 2016 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-02633

Appearances

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On May 21, 2015, DoD 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 March 31, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant requested that his case be decided on the written record and then did not file a response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). On appeal, he states he now has proof that his delinquent debts have been paid-off, which he did not have at the time his case was submitted to the Judge for decision. No documents are attached to the brief and the brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally, the Board does not review a case de novo. 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Catherine M. Engstrom Catherine M. Engstrom Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board