CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-02633.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-02633.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02633.a1

Jun 9, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· 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 denial was based on Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15.

During the initial hearing, the applicant did not present claims regarding the resolution of his debts. On appeal, the Board could not consider these new claims, as it is prohibited from reviewing evidence not introduced during the original hearing.

Furthermore, the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge in the initial decision. Consequently, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 21, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMar 31, 2016Decision made by Administrative Judge Shari Dam.
Decision dateJun 9, 2016Appeal 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on financial and personal conduct concerns. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The appeal was based solely on the Applicant's claim of having paid off delinquent debts, which was not considered as it was new evidence not presented during the initial hearing.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — 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 raise an issue of harmful error by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error. The Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error, and since none were presented, the Judge's decision stands.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Catherine M. Engstrom
William S. Fields

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 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

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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